discussion

1. PART 1:

1. There are several factors when considering social stratification and it’s affects on poverty: class, race, gender, culture and economic changes, but the impact of each seems to shift depending on the time period studied. For example, high poverty levels among African Americans began because of inherent racial discrimination and the lack of opportunity that came with it. However, with greater anti-discrimination protections and growing cultural shifts, while discrimination does still exist, continued poverty levels now seem to be attributed more to generational poverty, current socioeconomic class, and economic changes (Iceland, 2015). In fact, economic changes, specifically globalization and international trade, have probably had the greatest recent impact on poverty. As US companies moved manufacturing overseas, traditional blue-collar workers have often been unable to find comparable employment. Iceland uses Apple as an example of the globalization typical of US tech companies. Apple employed 43,000 people in the US in 2012, and 20,000 overseas. Their contractors use more than 700,000 people for Apple manufacturing but most of that work is outside of the United States (Iceland, 2015).

2.  While Annette Lareau’s research definitely shows a difference in parenting strategies between classes, it seems to me the “concerted cultivation” strategy that is described in Our Kids (Putnam, 2015) is as much a cultural shift as a class-based difference. I say this because parenting, even a generation or two ago, was much more hands-off, and resembled more closely the “natural growth” model presented, even in middle class families. For example, a study published in the August 2016 issue of The Journal of Marriage and Family revealed that parents at every level spend more time with their children now than parents of the 1960s (How Parenting has Improved, 2016). The cultural changes may have started, or be presenting itself, first in middle class families, as they have more time and resources to invest in their children, but I do think it is a cultural parenting trend.

3.  I do think the government has a definite responsibility to help those in poverty, but it needs to be done well. As shown in my answer to question 4, current government measures appear to be less than effective in helping families rise above poverty. Taking more from the “haves” to give to the “have-nots” (income distribution) won’t change anything if funds are not being used wisely and effectively. The best poverty measures would provide practical immediate help to the poor, as well as address underlying causes. Economic stimulus packages, job creation and training, along with greater access to higher education are all important things to consider (Stanford,2016). I believe the government does not carry the full weight of responsibility though. I believe that those blessed with more have a measure of moral and community responsibility to help those with less. The principle of “There but for the grace of God, go I” applies. 

4.   The TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) program was developed in 1996 to overhaul the existing welfare system. The federal budget for TANF is set at $16.5 billion per year. That amount has not changed since the program’s creation and, without inflation adjustments, the real value has dropped by nearly 40 percent (Policy Basics, 2018).  The grant money is given to states, paired with state funds (75-80 percent of their 1994 spending on similar programs) and used by states to administer poverty relief programs within TANF objectives. Federal guidelines capped TANF lifetime benefits for a family at 5 years and increased work participation rates (Aid to Dependent Children, 2009). Each state allocates TANF funds, executing their own programs, and sets their own guidelines for elements such as program eligibility, cash assistance programs, work requirements, and even the length of time a person can receive benefits, up to the 5-year federal maximum (Policy Basics, 2018). Facts indicate that TANF is not effective in reaching the people who need help most. In 2017, only 23 people out of every 100 in poverty received TANF assistance. This ratio varies considerably between states. In 2017, 16 states had a TANF-to- poverty-ratio of 10 or less (Floyd, Burnside & Schott, 2018). As far as the “welfare to work” strategy that was a key philosophy of the program when enacted in 1996, only 11% of TANF funds are being used for work-related programs (Floyd, Burnside & Schott, 2019). If working hard and overcoming adversity is part of the fabric of America, so is helping those who need it. If government poverty assistance programs are not effective in dealing with the problem of poverty, the necessary and responsible thing would be to make changes.

PART 2:

(Moyers, 2013) Two American Families followed the lives of two blue-collar families in Milwaukee over the course of twenty years. Both families experienced layoffs from factory closures in the mid 1990s. The Stanleys and the Neumanns found it impossible to obtain employment that provided income at or near the same level of the jobs they lost. Both families were extremely hard working and found various minimum wage work, but it was not enough to keep them out of poverty.

The families faced difficult challenges, from keeping up with mortgage payments to paying utilities and putting food on the table. They faced relationship challenges because of economic stress (The Neumanns eventually divorced). The financial burdens affected their children. They worried about money and had a difficult time feeling secure. Both families had difficulty obtaining adequate benefits. Unexpected medical expenses were devastating to the Stanley’s already hard financial situation.

Higher paying jobs with increased minimum wage or more education and job skills training all seem like obvious solutions to help each family out of poverty. There is something else I noticed, though, that I think is important. Both families were discouraged but only one family, the Neumanns, seemed truly defeated. The Stanleys kept hanging on to each other, and to hope, regardless of their financial setbacks.  Jackie Stanley said, “So a man thinketh, so is he. If I think poverty all the time, I’ll act that way” (Moyers, 2013). While their personal financial situation did not change significantly over the time covered in the documentary, their kids are breaking the poverty cycle, one at a time. Their son went to college and is in a good paying job. According to their family Facebook page  (set up after the documentary to provide updates) their oldest daughter was set to graduate from college in May (Facebook Post, 2018). I wonder how much their attitude has been passed on and is playing a role in lifting their children out of poverty.

REFERENCE

Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Temporary Assistance For Needy Families-Overview, (2009, November 30). Retrieved from  https://aspe.hhs.gov/aid-families-dependent-children-afdc-and-temporary-assistance-needy-families-tanf-overview-0

 

Floyd, I. Burnside, A. & Schott, L. (2018, November 28). Policy Brief: TANF Reaching Few Poor Families. Retrieved from  https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/policy-brief-tanf-reaching-few-poor-families

 

Floyd, I. Burnside, A. & Schott, L. (2019, February 19). How States Are Using TANF Funds. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/how-states-use-funds-under-the-tanf-block-grant

 

How Parenting Has Improved Since the 60s, (2016, September 28).

Retrieved from  https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/today-s-parents-spend-more-time-their-kids-moms-and-dads-did-50-years-ago

 

Iceland, J. (2013). Poverty in America: A Handbook. Berkeley: University of

                    California Press

 

Moyers, B. (2013). Two American Families. United States: Frontline with Okapi Productions and Public Affairs Television, Inc.

 

Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF, (2018, August 15). Retrieved from  https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-to-tanf

 

Putnam, R. (2015). Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster

Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. (2016, October 25).  Module 3: The Causes of Poverty [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH6k5nDzgUQ

Stanley Family. (October 19, 2018). Facebook. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/pg/Stanley-Family-699824060044209/posts/?ref=page_internal

2. In the Poverty in America textbook (Iceland, 2013) the author discusses the concept of Social Stratification. You will need to argue which factor (economic growth, race, gender, class or culture)  is most important in explaining poverty. Backup your views with research from the textbook.

I feel like class or culture is the most important factor in explaining poverty. We do not get to choose what class we are born into. Therefore, for example, if you were born in the lower class your family was probably struggling to live paycheck to paycheck. You might have been on food stamps and government assistance. Your parents may have not had a college degree and could not get better paying jobs. You may have lived with a single parent raising kids on his/her own. You lived in an area where poverty was common so it was not the safest neighborhood or you did not have the best group of friends or influences. Iceland (2013) states, “The resulting culture of poverty consists of an eroded work ethic, dependency on government programs, lack of educational aspiration and achievement, increased single parenthood and illegitimacy, criminal activity, and drug and alcohol abuse” (Iceland, 2013 pg. 108).

2. Do you think the research by Annette Lareau in Putnam’s book (2015) that describes “two class-based models of parenting in America society today,” concerted cultivation vs. natural growth (see page 118) is the best way to compare rich and poor parenting strategies?

I think the research by Annette Lareau in Putnam’s book (2015) that describes “two class-based models of parenting in America society today,” concerted cultivation vs. natural growth is the best way to compare rich and poor parenting strategies. Putnam (2015) states that “concerted cultivation refers to the childrearing investments that middle-class parents deliberately make to foster their children’s cognitive, social, and cultural skills, and, in turn, to further their children’s success in life, particularly in school (Putnam, 2015 pg. 118).” I have seen many family and friend’s families that adopt this parenting strategy that latter have their children be successful in their endeavors. I find this parenting strategy the most effective. This type of parenting involves the children and parent the most as compared to natural growth parenting. Putnam states, “natural growth leaves the child’s development more to his or her own devices, with less scheduling and less engagement with schools. In this model, parents rely more on rules and discipline, less on close parental monitoring, encouragement, reasoning, and negotiation” (Putnam, 2015 pg. 118). This type of parenting is less involved with their children. I do not find this type of parenting successful as it puts less attention on the child. The child growing up needs to be well nurtured and paid attention to. The parents need to be involved in every aspect of their life such as emotionally, physically, and educationally.

3. Should the "haves" (i.e. the rich)  be responsible for the "have-nots" or should it solely be the responsibility of the government to help the poor?

I think it should be cut half and half. The rich should help the poor in ways of higher taxes to help fund the poor. Think about if you are the rich, but were born poor you would want help out as well. I think it’s important to put yourself in other people’s shoes. All in all we come down to being human and we all want each other to succeed. The government should also help the poor to get them on their feet. There should be limits and rules though so people do not take advantage of the system. For example some politicians argue that the poor should be getting a certain amount of income each month to help pay for rent and I think they should be actively working or currently working or currently enrolled in school (so they can in turn get a good job afterwards).

4. What is the cut off point for providing aid (ie. Poverty Line, TANF requirements) and does too much 'taking care of' change the ideals of American culture, or does it incorporate the very essence of what America stands for?

The cut off point for providing aid (ie. poverty line, TANF requirements) incorporates the very essence of what America stands for. “States have used their TANF funds for a variety of services and supports, including: income assistance (including wage supplements for working-poor families), child care, education and job training, transportation, aid to children at risk of abuse and neglect, and a variety of other

services to help low-income families” (Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF, 2018). This is definitely helpful in our society. I believe America stands for helping one another whether regardless of class, culture, race, or gender. We are together as one.

Part 2

1. Watch the following video Two American Families

Summarize the movie and describe 3 challenges these two families faced trying to get by on their minimum wage earnings.

The video Two American Families is about two families, the Neumanns and the Stanleys living in poverty in Milwaulkie. The Neumanns consists of Terry and Tony and their three children. And the Stanleys consists of Claude and Jackie and their five children. Both families are struggling to make ends meet and sustain stable employment. Challenges these family face is unemployment, mortgage payments, and raising their children. The Neumann family got married straight after high school and had children right away. Both families are involved in their churches. I found the Stanleys more resilient as a family and determined. When Claude was laid off, he refused food stamps and was determined to always find a job no matter how gritty it was. He said, “When I got laid off, they wanted me to go on welfare, but I could not stand in that line. This is not me. I got my strength, my health, I will find me a job” (Moyer, B. 2013, July 9). Eventually Terry and Tony marriage fell apart and Terry lost the house to the bank. You see the Neumann family’s children grow up in poverty themselves struggling to find work as well and living with relatives and friends. The Stanley’s children grew up more successful as earning college degrees and with well enough jobs. Growing up doing odd jobs I think helped them grow up with a hard work ethic. (Moyer, B. 2013, July 9).

 

Discuss one of the biggest factors that could help each family out of poverty?

One of the biggest factors that could help each family out of poverty is to apply for government assistance when needed and they could move to a different city where housing is cheaper and jobs are more available and prosperous. Being in a place with a good economy could have really helped out. Also a college degree would have helped them earn a better job with better wages.

 

Reference Page

Policy Basics: An Introduction to TANF (2018, August 15). Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-to-tanf

Iceland J. (2013). Poverty In America: A Handbook. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University California Press.

Putnam R. (2015). Our Kids: The American Dream In Crisis. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Moyers, B. (2013, July 9). Frontline: Two American Families: Retrieved from http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/10/two-american-families/