The word “poverty” sets a bright line for what is “bad” and what is “ok”, empirically ignoring the suffering of and blaming people for their condition and perpetuating colonialism

In discussions about poverty, welfare reform, the low-wage labor market, and child care, one has to discuss each topic. What we want to emphasize, however, is the interconnectedness of each of the areas. A single mother is a low-wage worker; she periodically becomes un- or underemployed; she is a mother; she and her children have health problems; they lack affordable housing; they live in less-than-desirable neighborhoods; their children often have inadequate health care and go to inferior schools. Their lives are fluid, and their circumstances change. As we pointed out in Chapter 2, this is true of poverty. In a very important sense, the term “poverty” is misleading. It not only is seriously inadequate, but its gives the impression that it is a bright line: below it is bad, above it “everything is OK.” But families barely get by with incomes substantially above the “poverty” threshold. Yet, we are constantly told that after welfare reform, things are not so bad because the poverty percentages of single-mother families and their children have not increased substantially. However, we have to account for the near poor as well as those officially below the poverty line and those in “extreme poverty” (half of the official threshold). As we have argued, in this country, there are very serious problems of inequality and hardship for families who work hard, play by the rules, but live day by day, barely making it. People move in and out of “poverty,” but they rarely move very far, and one bump sends them back below the poverty threshold. Therefore, when we discuss the various conclusions and recommendations, we want to always keep in mind the interrelatedness of the lives of these people. Improving the low-wage labor market ought to improve income, but this depends on the costs and quality of child care, transportation, health care, housing, and education. As we discuss, raising the minimum wage and reforming the unemployment system are essential, but the mother also needs reliable, good child care, and she and her children have to get good health care. The families need income, but income alone is not enough without decent housing, child care, health care, better schools, and safe neighborhoods. All of the recommendations are necessary, but each one separately is not sufficient. The topics have to be discussed separately, but they are not separate. Welfare leavers disproportionately work in low-wage, low-skilled, nonstandard jobs. Most of these families are “playing by the rules.” It may seem odd that we would use that phrase, but just as we want to reject the use of “poverty” as a standard, we reject the labels of “undeserving poor,” the “African-American welfare queen,” and in a prior age, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews, and others from southern Europe, and today, undocumented immigrants. Ever since the beginning of our Colonial history, when the first poor people asked for help, they were blamed for their condition. It did not matter that jobs were not available, that many were indentured tenants at the mercy of their landlords, that many were sick, that husbands and fathers died during the wars or at sea.1 Poverty was still their fault, and that aid, if given, would have to be carefully supervised lest deviant behavior be encouraged. America still adheres to these views. As discussed in Chapter 4, the single mother continues to be demonized. The nonaged childless adults are treated even worse. In many states, there is no aid at all; in others, it is miserly and short term. They are usually confined to single hotel rooms (SROs) and shelters. We try to avoid them as they beg on the streets. Workers who lose their jobs or claim that they are disabled are suspect. Are they trying hard enough to find another job? Unemployment insurance is low and short term; it must not encourage idleness. Disability is strict; most claims are rejected.