rough draft

Tara Edrisavi

April 27, 2014

RWS 200

Professor Werry

Child Poverty’s Affect on Inequality

Ask almost anyone about the American Dream and they are likely to mention some of the following: owning your own home; being able to afford nice vacations; having a big-screen TV, nice clothes, or season tickets to your team’s home games. For most Americans, the dream also means that all people, no matter how humble their beginnings, can succeed in whatever they set out to do if they work hard enough. In other words, a poor boy or girl could grow up to become the President of the United States, an astronaut, a professional basketball player, or a movie star. One problem with the American Dream, however, is that it does not always match reality. The ideology of the American Dream legitimizes stratification by reinforcing the idea that everyone has the same chance to get ahead and that success or failure depends on the person. However, according to some pundits, we have lost focus on the original meaning of the American Dream because of our unequal distribution of income and wealth that is leading to debt, less free time, and greater discontent. In this paper, I will refer to reliable sources to extend my argument that child poverty leads to a tremendous amount of income inequality within our country.

            Throughout his article, “The Anti-Economist: Problem Number One,” Jeff Madrick demonstrates his belief that America’s most critical problem is child poverty. Although politicians like Governor Romney and President Obama believe that we should build the economy from the middle out by reforming education programs, Madrick argues that this will not resolve anything. Because “more than one in five U.S. children live below the poverty line” and “some 13 percent of children are born into poverty” (Madrick 15), many of these children do not have the opportunity to take advantage of the universal education system. Therefore, Madrick proposes following the example of other countries, including Britain and Mexico, who actively reduced their rate of child poverty by implementing government programs.   Instead of cutting budgets designed to help the poor like the United States, Mexico implemented the “boldest and potentially most productive” solution by providing cash allowances to “families with children who attend school, adopt minimal nutritional standards, and meet other conditions” (Madrick 16).

Another solution Madrick offers is to not only reduce the rate of unemployment for parents, but to also raise the rate of minimum wage. In addition, he proposes the idea of enacting reforms such as the Early Head Start, which is “a community-based program that provides services to pregnant women and children up to age three” (Madrick 16). Back in 2007, Michael Bloomberg, a New York City mayor, enacted a similar plan to Madrick’s that seemed to have worked as “children attended school, got regular medical attention, went to the dentist, and got a library card” (17). However, because Bloomberg’s original purpose was to raise test scores, the plan was not renewed. But if we see this plan working in different countries and even our own, why wouldn’t we enact it to decrease our rate of child poverty? Minimizing our country’s rate of child poverty definitely contributes to reducing America’s rate of inequality, but this is only a partial attempt.

            James Q. Wilson took a similar approach when discussing the reasons for inequality.  He believes “mobility is not limited to the top-earning households” and it takes hard work to make it to the top. Studies have proven that “nearly half of the families in the lowest fifth of income earners in 2001 had moved up within six years,” proving Wilsons point that it is possible to start from the bottom and make it to the top. The question he poses throughout his post, however, is not who is rich, but rather who is poor?  According to Wilson, “among the bottom fifth of income earners, many people, especially men, stay there their whole lives” (Wilson 2). In addition, America is experiencing a “national tragedy” as “two thirds of black children in America experience a level of poverty that only 6 percent of white children will ever see” (Wilson 2). The problem we face today will not be solved by taxing the rich, Wilson argues, but by teaching skills and opportunities to those less fortunate and giving them a chance to succeed. Wilson believes our society should implement “ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce.” This is part of the solution to decrease our rate of child poverty, however there is much more that can be done in order to ensure the end.

            Like Madrick and Wilson, I believe that child poverty is one of the main aspects that contribute to income inequality. Unfortunately, “men who are born into the lowest income categories today are more likely to be stuck there compared to the opportunities available in the Nordic countries or the United Kingdom,” (Huffington Post) which is why it is so crucial we decrease this number. About one-fourth of children under the age of six live in poverty and research has proven that those who suffer through early childhood poverty grow with negative effects on brain development. These young children are also “less likely to have access to early-childhood education programs,” according to Laura D’Andrea Tyson. As a result of this class inequality, children who come from low-income families, or disadvantaged ethnic groups, have a more difficult time attaining a middle-class living than their peers from a more privileged background. If this is the case, then the obvious answer is to decrease the rate of poor US citizens. This problem does not come with an easy solution though. However, there are always little things we can do as a nation in order to try and decrease this rate.

One solution could be for the US to invest more in early childhood education programs, which would “greatly improve both cognitive skills like arithmetic and reading, which are important for getting a high-skilled, good-paying job, as well as non-cognitive skills like punctuality and social etiquette that are arguably equally important” (Matthews). Currently, early education, from pre-kindergarten to third grade, is a subject of debate for many parents who are looking to send their children to school. Since early education is so important and has proven to have positive long lasting effects on children, all parents are determined to put their child in a good school with proper education and passionate teachers. We cannot decrease our rate of poverty or blame children for not succeeding if we don’t give children the opportunity to gain a valuable education from the beginning. Children who recieve a quality education from the start are brought up in a studious environment making studying a norm and increasing their rate of success.

In addition, the government could implement laws encouraging all citizens, mainly low class citizens, to strive for success through different incentives. This idea is similar to Madrick’s program that allowed cash allowances, called “Oportunidades.” This type of program would decrease the use of child labor and therefore raise the rate of high school attendance, like it did in Mexico. Other incentives could be used as well. For example, if a student were to receive a certain GPA, let’s say a 3.5 or above, the government should find a way to lower their student debt. Other laws like that could be made to encourage everyone to work hard and succeed.

Along with education reforms and government incentives, there are other things Americans can do to reduce our astonishing rate of child poverty. However, it is up to each individual in our community to do so. The government can start by funding for education programs, especially elementary schools, and Americans can contribute by encouraging one another to succeed. Child poverty is a problem that must be solved within our country in order for Americans to have a chance of living the American Dream.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

            Fleetwood, Blake. “If You Want the American Dream, Go to Finland.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Dec. 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.

            Madrick, J. (2013, October). Problem Number One. The Anti-Economist, pp. 15-17.

            Matthews, Dylan. “Ten Ways to Reduce Inequality without Raising Tax Rates.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 06 Dec. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

            Tyson, Laura D’Andrea. “Income Inequality and Educational Opportunity.” Economix Income Inequality and Educational Opportunity Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014

            Wilson, James Q. “Angry about Inequality? Don’t Blame the Rich.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 29 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

final essay proposal

I plan to talk about how poverty affects income inequality in multiple ways.  I will use madrick and an article from huntington post to further support this idea then I will offer my own solution based on research I have done.  The paper will be similar to my last one and I plan to use the same introduction and paragraph discussing Madrick.  The difference will be that most of the paper will reflect my ideas about the situation and my solutions.  I will also research other articles and potentially use them to support my thesis or just use statistics from them.

NY Times

All of these articles have a different viewpoint in regards to inequality within America.  According to Diana Furchtgott-Roth,  “one of the fastest ways to create more equality would be to rule that only one member of a family is allowed to work full-time.”  Statistics have proven that growing inequality has been caused by rising numbers of two earner couples and therefore we must change that number in order to ensure more stability.  

Michael C. Dawson believes economic inequality “directly and indirectly harm the prospects for economic growth.”  Americans today work far more than any of their counterparts abroad although they receive the same stagnant wages, while greater percentages of wealth go to the very wealthy.  This rise in equality is caused by the lack of education more than qualified students are receiving along with the “increasing swath of the American public that is becoming permanently detached from labor markets.”  My favorite part about this article was the way he concluded it with a question.  He asked “ How long will middle- and working-class Americans be willing to work so much harder than their peers if the American dream largely no longer applies to the great majority of citizens? How much longer can economic growth be sustained if it does not benefit the overwhelming majority of citizens within the United States?” which I find a useful tactic in trying to gain the audience’s attention.

James Q. Wilson took another approach when discussing inequality.  He believes “mobility is not limited to the top-earning households” and it takes hard work to make it to the top.  Similar Furchtgott-Roth, Wilson argues that we could reduce income inequality by reducing the number of women in the work force. The question Wilson poses throughout this post is not who is rich, but who is poor?  Many statistics are used to prove that most people in minorities who are already at the bottom of the social class will experience almost no social mobility. So instead of taxing the rich assuming that this will help solve the problem for the poor, Wilson proposes that we find and implement “ways to encourage parental marriage, teach the poor marketable skills and induce them to join the legitimate workforce.” This is similar to Madrick’s whole argument as he as well believes that child poverty is the main reason for social inequality.  

rough draft

Tara Edrisavi

April 7, 2014

RWS 200

Professor Werry

Inequality

            Ask almost anyone about the American Dream and they are likely to mention some of the following: owning your own home; being able to afford nice vacations; having a big-screen TV, nice clothes, or season tickets to your team’s home games. For most Americans, the dream also means that all people, no matter how humble their beginnings, can succeed in whatever they set out to do if they work hard enough. In other words, a poor boy or girl could grow up to become the president of the United States, an astronaut, a professional basketball player, or a movie star. One problem with the American Dream, however, is that it does not always match reality. It is more of a belief system that explains and justifies some sort of social arrangement, including inequality. The ideology of the American Dream legitimizes stratification by reinforcing the idea that everyone has the same chance to get ahead and that a success or failure depends on the person. However, according to some pundits, we have lost focus on the original meaning of the American Dream because of our unequal distribution of income and wealth that is leading to debt, less free time, and greater discontent. In this paper, I will analyze three different approaches to explain how child poverty, stagnant wages for the middle class, and family status inevitably bring about inequality within our country.

            Throughout his article, “The Anti-Economist: Problem Number One,” Jeff Madrick demonstrates his belief that America’s most critical problem is child poverty. Although politicians like Governor Romney and President Obama believe that we should build the economy from the middle out by reforming education programs, Madrick argues that this will not resolve anything. Because “more than one in five U.S. children live below the poverty line” (Madrick 15) and “some 13 percent of children are born into poverty” (Madrick 15), many of these children do not have the opportunity to take advantage of the universal education system. Therefore, Madrick proposes following the example of other countries, including Britain and Mexico, who actively reduced their rate of child poverty by implementing government programs.   Instead of cutting budgets designed to help the poor like the United States, Mexico implemented the “boldest and potentially most productive” (Madrick 16) solution by providing cash allowances to “families with children who attend school, adopt minimal nutritional standards, and meet other conditions” (Madrick 16). Another solution Madrick offers is to not only reduce the rate of unemployment for parents, but to also raise the rate of minimum wage. In addition, he proposes the idea of enacting reforms such as the Early Head Start, which is “a community-based program that provides services to pregnant women and children up to age three” (Madrick 16). Back in 2007, Michael Bloomberg, a New York City mayor, enacted a similar plan to Madrick’s that seemed to have worked as “children attended school, got regular medical attention, went to the dentist, and got a library card” (17). However, because Bloomberg’s original purpose was to raise test scores, the plan was not renewed. But if we see this plan working in different countries and even our own, why wouldn’t we enact it to decrease our rate of child poverty? Minimizing our country’s rate of child poverty definitely contributes to reducing America’s rate of inequality, but this is only a partial attempt.

            Former Secretary of US Labor, Robert Reich, took a different approach to solving America’s problem of inequality. According to Reich, the problem is that the rich spend too little and therefore do not generate enough economic activity. As a result, the middle class remains in the same position unable to spend enough money to stimulate the economy. To solve this problem, Reich argues that we must spend our money to decrease the rate of unemployment. The middle class is what keeps the economy going as “consumer spending is 70% of the United States economy and the middle class is the heart of the consumer spending” (Inequality for All). When the middle class does not share any economic gains, America gets into a “downward vicious cycle where workers buy less, companies downsize, tax revenues decrease, government cuts programs, and workers are less educated, and unemployment rises” (Inequality for All). As all this money accumulates at the top, wealthy individuals have the ability to flood the political system with their money undermining our democracy and “losing the moral foundation stone on which this country and our democracy was built” (Inequality for All). Currently, the economy is doing well and growing as productivity is increasing. However, we need to “mobilize and energize other people” in order to improve our economy and tighten the gap between the middle class and upper class. Blending social lasses will help dissolve inequality and lead to a more prosperous country where the American Dream could be attainable.

Another aspect of inequality is addressed in “Confronting Inequality” written by Paul Krugman, an economics professor at Princeton. Krugman discusses factors that cause inequality, including the different class systems. According to Krugman, “vast income inequality inevitably brings vast social inequality in its train” (Krugman 589).  This social inequality is seen all throughout the world through family status.  Throughout his article, Krugman explains how children from rich parents end up going to better colleges and receiving higher degrees than children from lower social backgrounds.  Even if the child from the lower social background excels in academics and scores higher than the child from the richer family, they still may not make it to the top. Krugman reinforces this idea throughout his article.  In addition, Krugman demonstrates that family status leads to a lack of inequality with the healthcare system and education system.  All of this inequality is what corrupts our politics and Krugman believes that “the tax break is unjustified, and should be eliminated” (Krugman 593).  He supports his theories with a lot of statistics, examples and comparisons to other countries to form a credible argument.  To solve this problem, Krugman agrees with Reich in that we should have a larger working middle class and decrease the size of our upper class in order to decrease the rate of unemployment and make a cycle in which most people can spend money without resulting to debt.  In order to demonstrate how middle class families spent less of their money on luxuries and more of it on assets, Krugman, Like Reich, referred to the bankruptcies in the 80s where almost all families ran into debt because of the sudden buying of homes. Krugman argues that these middle class families are going into debt in order to give their children a chance in an increasingly unequal society.  Parents are putting their students into private schools hoping for an opportunity to excel. Academic success, however, does not carry as much weight as social standing. This concept alone is unfair, especially because we promotote the concept of the American Dream, an unrealistic goal. How can we say that we offer equal opportunity when statistics prove otherwise?

Madrick, Reich, and Krugman all make valid arguments in regards to the cause of inequality in America. While they make convincing cases, I propose that all three factors contribute to inequality along with several more. To solve these individual problems, we should first start by helping those families who suffer from poverty. As of 2010, when the last census was taken, twenty-two percent of children under eighteen lived in poverty. This is a number that must be reduced in order for Americans to have a chance at social mobility. Unfortunately, “men who are born into the lowest income categories today are more likely to be stuck there compared to the opportunities available in the Nordic countries or the United Kingdom,” (Huffington Post) which is why it is so crucial we decrease this number. After this problem is solved, I agree with Reich and Krugman that we must expand our working middle class. This way more money would be spent and the rate on economic activity would increase significantly. In order to widen our middle class, however, we should increase the tax rates for the wealthy and apply the Buffet Rule, which states that if you make more than 1 million dollars a year then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle class families do.  After this, improving our education system is key. America’s education system is currently falling behind drastically compared to other European countries, which is reducing our rate of upward mobility. These are a few steps towards the right direction in eliminating inequality within America to give people the opportunity they deserve to pursue the American Dream. Inequality is not caused by solely one factor and is not something that can be fixed overnight. Working together as a country and realizing that there are multiple aspects to this problem will help make the American Dream possible.

 

Essay basic

In his article, “Congrotning Inequality,” Krugman shares his beliefs about the different factors that cause inequality including the different class systems and the fact that those with most political power, contain the most money, meaning that they are able to buy off their ideas.  Krugman believes “vast income inequality inevitably brings vast social inequality in its train” (Krguman 589).  This social inequality is seen all throughout the world through family status.  Throughout his article, Krugman explains how children from rich parents end up going to the better college and receiving a higher degree than a child from a social background.  The thing behind this is that even if the child from a lower social background excels in academics and scores higher than the child from the richer family, they still will not make it to the top.  This is the whole point of Krugman’s idea.  Krugman also believes that there in a unique lack of inequality with the healthcare system along with the education system.  All of this inequality is what corrupts out politics and Krguman believes that “the tax break is unjustified, and should be eliminated” (Krugman 593).  Krugman supports his theories with a lot of statitistics and examples and comparisons to other countries to form a credible argument.  To solve this problem, Krugman agrees with Reich in that we should have a larger working middle class and decrease the size of our upper class in order to decrease the rate of unemployment and make a cycle in which most people can spend money without resulting to debt.  Like Reich, Krugman referred to the bankruptcies in the 80s where almost all families ran into debt because of the sudden buying of homes.  This point is made in order to show how middle class families spent less of their money on luxuries and more of it on assets, like homes.  One of my favorite points that Krguman brings up is when he talks about how these middle class families are going into debt in order to give their children a chance in an increasingly unequal society.  Parents are putting their students into private schools giving them the opportunity to excel, when in reality they will not excel based on academics, but purely based on social standing.

 

Contrary to Krugman and Brooks, Jeff Madrick makes it apparent throughout his article “The Anti-Economist: Problem Number One” that America’s most critical problem is child poverty. Although politicians like Romney and President Obama believe that we should build the economy from the middle out by reforming education programs, Madrick argues that this will not resolve anything. Because “more than one in five U.S. children live below the poverty line” (15) and “some 13 percent of children are born into poverty” (15), many of these children do not have the opportunity to take advantage of the universal education system. Therefore, Madrick proposed following the example of other countries, including Britain and Mexico, who actively reduced their rate of child poverty by implementing government programs.  Instead of cutting budgets designed to help the poor like the United States, Mexico implemented the “boldest and potentially most productive” (16) solution by providing cash allowances to “families with children who attend school, adopt minimal nutritional standards, and meet other conditions” (16). Another solution Madrick offered was to not only reduce the rate of unemployment for parents but also raise the rate of minimum wage. In addition he proposes the idea of enacting reforms such as the Early Head Start, “a community-based program that provides services to pregnant women and children up to age three” (16). Back in 2007, Michael Bloomberg, a New York City mayor, enacted a similar plan to Madrick’s that seemed to have worked as “children attended school, got regular medical attention, went to the dentist, and got a library card” (17). However, because Bloomberg’s original purpose was to raise test scores, the plan was not renewed. But if we see this plan working in different countries and even our own, why wouldn’t we want to enact it to decrease our rate of child poverty? What do we have to lose?

 

 

Strengths in Madrick: Uses a lot of facts making his point very reliable: even quotes a pscyhologist

Madrick

 Jeff Madrick makes it apparent throughout his article “The Anti-Economist: Problem Number One” that America’s most critical problem is child poverty. Although politicians like Romney and President Obama believe that we should build the economy from the middle out by reforming education programs, Madrick argues that this will not resolve anything. Because “more than one in five U.S. children live below the poverty line” (15) and “some 13 percent of children are born into poverty” (15), many of these children do not have the opportunity to take advantage of the universal education system. Therefore, Madrick proposed following the example of other countries, including Britain and Mexico, who actively reduced their rate of child poverty by implementing government programs.  Instead of cutting budgets designed to help the poor like the United States, Mexico implemented the “boldest and potentially most productive” (16) solution by providing cash allowances to “families with children who attend school, adopt minimal nutritional standards, and meet other conditions” (16). Another solution Madrick offered was to not only reduce the rate of unemployment for parents but also raise the rate of minimum wage. In addition he proposes the idea of enacting reforms such as the Early Head Start, “a community-based program that provides services to pregnant women and children up to age three” (16). Back in 2007, Michael Bloomberg, a New York City mayor, enacted a similar plan to Madrick’s that seemed to have worked as “children attended school, got regular medical attention, went to the dentist, and got a library card” (17). However, because Bloomberg’s original purpose was to raise test scores, the plan was not renewed. But if we see this plan working in different countries and even our own, why wouldn’t we want to enact it to decrease our rate of child poverty? What do we have to lose?

 

 

Strengths in Madrick: Uses a lot of facts making his point very reliable: even quotes a pscyhologist