Candidates Conclude “The Poor Will Always Be With Us” – Good Luck!

Voting Location Rural Alabama 1966

Voting Location Rural Alabama 1966

New Orleans  Both major candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, seem to have concluded that, “What the heck, the poor don’t really vote, and the poor will always be with us, so later for them.” Speeches about the economy are silent on the issue of the richness of America contrasted with our level of poverty compared to other industrialized countries.

Both have kinda, sorta come out for an increase in the federal minimum wage, but don’t start thinking about a “fight for $15,” because this election season that’s more of a “dream for $15.” Trump sometimes says he is for a $10 per hour minimum wage. Clinton has settled on a $12 per hour minimum wage.

Clinton has proposed expanded benefits for child care and health care and some other existing benefits. Trump has said there might should be a deduction from taxes for the average rate of child care payment, but of course you have to have a job where you benefit from such a deduction. Neither seem to say much about the earned income tax credit, nor surprisingly housing, especially affordable housing, which seems to have fallen off either of their lists. Trump obviously knows a bunch about housing, but it’s more in the unaffordable, luxury area.

Yet, as the New York Times noted:

There is not a single state where a full-time worker earning the minimum wage can rent a market-rate one-bedroom apartment for 30 percent or less of their income, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition. And more than 11 million households spend more than half of their income on rent.

After one federal initiative after another by both Democratic and Republican presidents, I have to wonder whether or not in the post-2007 housing collapse the candidates have lost their moorings. They can no longer stand firmly on the argument that everyone can afford to be a homeowner, and they are unwilling and unable to tackle the reality of a permanent renter-class and how that fits into a “new” sense of the American dream, and god knows no candidate wants to admit the dream is dead.

This abandonment of the poor is most striking of course for the Democratic Party, which many observers are now arguing is being upended by Trump’s success with the working class, especially white, which they have usually claimed. One columnist recently argued for example:

If current trends continue, not only will there be a class inversion among the white supporters of the Democratic Party, but the party will become increasingly dependent on a white upper middle class that has isolated itself from the rest of American society. Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.

So, who is really going to advocate and represent low-and-moderate income families or in other words, the poor and working class? Seems clear neither Clinton nor Trump is really ready to ride for this brand, and low-and-moderate income families are going to be hard pressed to find comfortable or permanent homes in either of the two major parties.


Please enjoy Y La Bamba by Libre.  Thanks to KABF.


Hope for Cities or Just Developers?

Looking northeast at soon to work LinkNYC station

soon to work LinkNYC station

New Orleans   It seems like cities are starting to get more attention, and if that’s true, that’s a good thing, but reading a recent special feature on cities, it’s not something without contradictions and concerns. This is true especially if you try to figure out where low-and-moderate income families and minorities fit into the coming profiles of the future. In some ways they just are not in the picture at least the one offered in the main from the New York Times, and this despite a recent feature in the same paper that talked flatly of the almost irreversible “whitening” of San Francisco where high housing costs and extreme inequality is leeching out the African-American community.

Part of the premise of some of the new hope for cities from the pundits and professors is the world seen dimly through the grim view from the suburbs. There is finally a consensus that cities are “safer,” which means they are ready to come back in again. Once again the question of “safer” for whom is unavoidable, but facts are facts, so we’ll ignore the bias for a moment. The same lens from the Trumpistas has all of us drowning in crime and gore in the urban space without being accompanied by the full disclosure that many of the zealots have done little more than drive quickly through cities for years, do their business, and leave before nightfall.

Unfortunately, reading the various pieces it was hard to feel comfortable about these new twists on urban revival. First of course there are huge, glaring omissions already mentioned, but followed quickly behind is the realization that the dominant perspective is not people-oriented really, but more developer promotions.

The examples of innovations are telling. There’s LinkNYC which would replace all remaining public telephone booths in New York City with wifi enabled terminals that can do tricks like recharge smartphones faster. Not surprisingly, this is paid for by tech companies and digital ads that will be on the booths, an expropriation of a public utility, and of course forget about lower income folks who still need those pay phones. There’s an apartment & condo complex in Austin and billionaire-driven building developments in Seattle that are at best ho-hum, but here are passed off as part of “remaking the modern cities.” There’s a story of Reno hoping to be Seattle and Kansas City about to have a “the largest co-working space in the world,” which is neoliberal, developer speak for building a monument to the gig economy and the decline of fulltime, firm-based employment.

The exceptions prove the rule in this parallax view of urban development and the modern dilemmas of the city. There is a piece on the rightly well-publicized and highly touted repurposing of a bank on Chicago’s South Side by Theaster Gates, Jr. in a celebration of black culture and an indictment of racism in the 97% African-American community there. There is also a discussion with an architect of the development of public space, which cannot paper over his conclusion that there is little and less being done.

The unaddressed problem is inescapable: where are the people – all the people – and what is being done to make a better place in the city for them and not just for young, white professionals and tech workers so many of these cities desire.


Is the Chattering Class Calling for the Poor to Organize?

ACORN PLATFORMNew Orleans   The darned poor! They are so exasperating! They won’t get jobs, when there are no jobs to be gotten. They won’t simply abandon their children, when there is no daycare they can afford or place to put them. They still want to eat even when they don’t have enough money for food. They won’t get off the streets, just because they don’t have homes. Perhaps worse, some believe that they’ll always be with us.

And, now some in the chattering class are calling for the poor to rise up and organize and do something about this inequality problem that the rich insisted successfully for so many years was the only way to go.

Alec MacGillis, a political reporter for ProPublica, recent author, and former reporter for The Washington Post and The New Republic writing about the paradox of poor areas voting for politicians who want to sock it to ‘em and the Democratic Party’s loss of the white working class, especially in rural areas, asks the question in an opinion piece in The New York Times, “So where does this leave Democrats and anyone seeking to expand and build lasting support for safety-net programs such as Obamacare?”

His answer, so to speak, is a stab in the dark, more a prayer than a wish. He says, “For starters, it means redoubling efforts to mobilize the people who benefit from the programs. This is no easy task with the rural poor….Not helping matters in this regard is the decline of local institutions like labor unions….” Then rather than actually spelling out how poor people in general, or in rural areas where it is even harder, are going to get this organizing and mobilizing done, he shifts to his second answer of sorts and that has to do with reducing “…the resentment that those slightly higher on the income ladder feel toward dependency in their midst.” He concludes his lengthy piece with the conclusion that, “If fewer people need the safety net to get by, the stigma will fade, and low-income citizens will be more likely to re-engage in their communities – not least by turning out to vote.”

Like I said, he’s clueless and reduced to wishes and prayers, hopes and dreams, but worse, he seems to be blaming the poor for the resentment others might feel about them, and in some convoluted and crazy way saying miraculously if there are less of them needing benefits, then others will hate them less, and then somehow low income folks will come out of the shadows and vote. Unbelievable. The nation has decimated the welfare population since Bill Clinton’s presidency, but now almost twenty years later there’s no fading of resentment, heck, politicians are still targeting the ones that are left and moving on after the working poor and seeing if they can take away their food stamps to boot. Vote, heck, if people mobilize and organize, you better hope they stumble on voting as a program!

Even esteemed sociologist and well-known author, William Junius Wilson seems confused about all of this. Earlier in the Times he was quoted saying, “Unfortunately no one has organized for these poor people. There is not a mobilization of political resources among the poor.” When I first read it, I said, “Right on! Look Professor Wilson is advocating that the poor organize! About fricking time!!” Then I read it more carefully. What does he mean, “…organized FOR these poor people?” Is he thinking about calling Ghostbusters or somebody to go advocate for the poor? Like MacGillis he seems to want to see “redoubling efforts to mobilize the people who benefit from the programs.” Meaning poor people. Wilson wants there to be “a mobilization of political resources among the poor,” but is he blaming the poor for not mobilizing their own “political resources,” like MacGillis was blaming them for calling resentment down upon themselves, or is he asking for someone somehow to get the poor moving, like MacGillis is hoping maybe the Democrats will shake off their doldrums and do?

Hey, don’t get me wrong, these are guys that know better and the times are hard and at least they are trying to say the right thing and calling for organization of the poor, which makes them special and super in my book, even though they both seem hopelessly confused about what that might mean and how it might be done.

Look, I know quite a bit about the ways and means of organizing and mobilizing the poor, and the one thing I can guarantee is that it will NOT reduce resentment and when they start voting and winning, the wrath of the powers that be will be called down upon them and then Wilson, MacGillis, and others like them had better not be in the long chorus line claiming they are asking for the right things just not going about it in the right ways, but they better be in the amen section. In the meantime, they and others who understand there has to be organization of and by the poor, need to put some money and muscle where their mouths are. There are plenty of people ready and able to see the job done, but it takes more than wishes and prayers, hopes and dreams to make it happen. Believe me!


How Scarcity Affects the Poor

17286670New Orleans   As Congress gets ready to come back to work, there are top-of-the-list items involving lower income families, including extension of unemployment benefits, protecting food stamp appropriations, and of course the ongoing fight for enrollment in Obamacare.  Once again the nasty subtext in the debate will continue to be the ongoing theme that the poor don’t work, are unworthy and immoral, and need more pressure and push to find non-existent jobs and so forth. 

            It’s worth reading a recent book called Scarcity:  Why Having Too Little Means so Much, by Sendhil Mullainathan, a Harvard economist, and Eldar Shafir, a Princeton physiologist, which looks analytically and behaviorally at how people, especially the poor, respond to the real life problems of not having enough money, enough food, and so forth.  The bottom line isn’t surprising though they come at the conclusion in novel and important ways, but essentially, the biggest problem about being poor is being poor, and scarcity exacerbates poverty for poor people.

            And, if you’re not going to read it, which is likely, you’ll just have to take my word for it since I’ve been going through the book over the last week and can recommend it, so here’s some quick takeaways from the professors’ work and studies in both the USA and India, which I also appreciated.

            They argue that the poor – and the rich – react similarly to scarcity, whether when confronting starvation or dieting, despite how different those problems are in the real world.  The fight to endure with insufficient resources, whether time in the day, food on the table, or money in your pocket, concentrates the mind both for better and for worse.  Better in that the poor and others facing scarcity are laser sharp on short term problems, compared to others, but in the words of the authors, their “bandwidth,” or ability to deal with multiple areas, especially long term impacts and consequences is much reduced.  For the poor that shows up everywhere from the recurrence of payday loans in America to the interest rates and borrowing practices of small farmers and rag collectors in India.  Making it that day or month is the test, the devil take the hindmost.

            Scarcity in essence reduces the mental bandwidth that might be accessible for what people not involved in such stressful or survival contests might see as higher priorities or rational choices like planning ahead, using self-control, or solving other life problems, which all lead to trade-offs, crises, and other problems.  The authors cite studies that compare the issues of the poor and others facing scarcity with the same loss of mental computing power or IQ points as losing a night without sleep.  If the problems faced by the poor then are permanent, then so is the loss of ability to deal with anything but survival, creating a perpetual cycle of defeat.

            What policy makers, organizers, and others need to understand from Scarcity is that these problems do not flow from personal failings or immoral lifestyles or careless living, but involuntary psychic disabilities that could befall anyone facing scarcity as permanent, chronic life experiences.  In other words, have a heart, this could – and does – happen to all of you, too, when you are faced with not enough time, money, and other resources, whether or not you realize it, not just the poor.  When looking down your nose, be careful, you might see someone just like yourself.



Why Deny the Poor Access to Telephone Service and the Internet?

lifeline solicitation-500x654Ocean Springs    We can say with confidence and without fear of correction that the coming year will see yet more full scale battles in the war against the poor.

Anyone can make that list.  Certainly it starts with the headliners right now as extended unemployment benefits are being terminated, food stamps are still on the chopping block in the farm bill, and vast hordes are still lined up nationally and state by state building obstacles to access to affordable healthcare.

And, just to pick one example, if you aren’t poor yet, look at the risks in front of you if you are a regular working stiff and don’t have health insurance according to reports from health actuaries.  The average American under 65 years of age will have a healthcare bill of $2700 this year.  5% of Americans will have really bad luck and equally bad health and end up with $47000 worth of health bills, pushing you lower down the economic ladder.  20% will have bills of $13,300 which would be devastating to many.  Yet, we have people saying, go naked with no insurance?  And, I’m not even talking about the problems of low wage jobs or unaffordable housing.  Pick your poison.

Nor do there seem to be limits on how many battles can be waged against the poor.

In Georgia, for example, advocates joined by the telephone industry itself had to sue to temporarily stop the legislature from trying to put a $5 per month fee on the bills for free telephones enabled by the FCC for 15 million lower income Americans.  These “lifeline” phones only give 250 minutes per month of time, but are what they claim, a lifeline for those who can’t afford them but need the ability to make doctor’s appointments, call ambulances, and handle the basic requirements of life.  Some of the howlers are so concerned that someone may have snuck one of these phones who didn’t qualify that they want to pretend that punishing the poor might be the way to stop it, as if a scamster wouldn’t be equally able to go for $5 bucks on that fraud.

Why slap the hand of the FCC on one of the few things they are doing right for the poor, especially given the spectacular failure of the FCC’s $10 per month internet access program for the poor with Comcast and other companies, who continue to promise the sky and deliver spit?  The fact that Cox and Times-Warner delivered even less is small comfort.  No sense pretending that there is a fair shot at the poor pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.  First, they don’t have boots, and then no internet either.

This is an issue throughout North America:

According to Statistics Canada, 54% of households in the lowest quartile of $30,000 or less do not have home internet access. This is roughly consistent with a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce that finds 57% of homes earning less than $25,000 have no computer and that only 43% have home internet, compared with 93% with household income over $100,000.

That number was quoted in a piece  advocating support of ACORN International and ACORN Canada’s digital divide campaign.

About the only protection low income families have now is from the NSA and the spying machine since they aren’t on the internet and might not be on phones enough either. Small comfort.  Maybe it’s time to stop the war on the poor and do something different?


Millennium Village Projects, Internet Access, and Understanding the Poor

Millennium Villages project Tiby Mali 2008New Orleans    As the gap between rich and poor widens, there is huge confusion from the uppers about what in the world are the lowers thinking and doing.   I read an article the other day about the controversy in South Africa over a young family with two children who moved into a house in the settlements with their housekeeper for a month to get a feel for it all.  I thought to myself.  Yawn.  What harm could it really cause, regardless?

            On the other hand, I’m approaching the end of Nina Munk’s book called The Idealist:  Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty, and I’m not sure that I will finish because it’s so depressing.   Granted it is hard to clothe Sachs as a knight in shining armor on this quest, not because of his brutal past as a proponent of severe, killing austerity programs in Bolivia, Poland, and Russia, but because he is an arrogant and narcissistic bull in the fragile china shop of the poor.  Yet, I’ve read all of his books since poverty became his mission and despite my reservations, I’ve rooted for the success of his Millennium Villages Projects in Africa, because he’s right to shrillingly advocate for more dollars to be spent in development and because if you don’t have a better horse in the race, bet on the one that’s running.  Unfortunately he hasn’t raised the money needed, despite the accuracy of his argument of the relative cost of so much change and his own tireless efforts.  More painfully from chapter to chapter in The Idealist the failures are deeply rooted in his refusal to listen to the very people living in the villages and understand what he is seeing and hearing.   We worked with his institute in New Orleans after Katrina.  His books argued for community organizing and popular participation, but I could tell he didn’t understand how to do it, but was just repeating something that sounded right.   We reached out to help, but he’s a busy man, but not so busy that he and the rest of us won’t feel the pain that comes in Africa from his project’s failures that are now pervasive.

            Reading an op-ed in the Times entitled “Let the Poor Have Fun,” perhaps made this point better indirectly.   Talking about the expansion of electricity and the internet to poor villages, the author made the case that it was OK for television sets to be plugged in before hospital incubators.  One would follow the other without coercion, scolding, and top-down pressure.  Believe me, I’ve sidled up to a computer in cybercafés all over the world in the slums of India, the Philippines, Kenya, and Mexico and watched my seatmates pitch in their coins so that 3 or 4 could crowd around movies or video games at top volume, and never thought twice, because I’m Ok with them learning skills, and it takes skills to be able to learn to use the computer or cellphones or whatever for work, health and life.

            The poor aren’t asking to be instructed.  If you bother to listen to them, they’re asking to be enabled.   With the enough money and tools, people rise to the task.  It doesn’t take moving into their homes, throwing millions into crops they don’t want to grow and can’t sell, or wrapping up bitter pills in hard candy, it takes listening, and then working with people to make their change happen their way.   Start simple and finish strong.  It’s hard, but it works.