American Poverty
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. The
United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. The
United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. The
United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. The
United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. The
United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. The
United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. The
United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
The United States is a country with vast diversity. Americans have a wide range of opinions,
personalities, and cultures, and differ in socioeconomic status and how this manifests itself in
everyday life. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to create policy for this diverse
group of people. Policymakers can either decide to write policy that benefits one specific group
or to write policy that benefits everyone. Social activists have studied the benefits of both for
many years and made arguments for both sides. In my opinion, the more successful policy is
one that benefits people of all socioeconomic groups because it will gain wider support since
more people benefit, allowing it to last longer and have a better chance to improve the life
chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. William Julius Wilson, author
of When Work Disappears and The Truly Disadvantaged, suggests a framework of long-term
and immediate solutions to help poor people. His long-term solutions place emphasis on the
“the relationship between employment and education and family support systems, and in the
metropolitan context, the relationship between the cities and the suburbs” (Wilson, 208).
Wilson suggests an improved educational system and more interaction between the cities and
the suburbs as specific long-term solutions. His immediate solutions aim to “either revise
current programs or create new programs to decrease joblessness among disadvantaged adults”
(Wilson, 208). He recommends job placement centers as a specific immediate solution. 1 In
When Work Disappears, Wilson offers the educational systems of industrial democracies like
Japan and Germany as models for the U.S. Their policies established a performance standard
for students to meet before they can graduate from secondary school. This policy increased the
number of workers with “higher-order thinking skills,” meaning they are better prepared,
regardless of their socioeconomic background, to compete in the job market and be successful
in technical training schools and other kinds of postsecondary education. By creating a national
standard for education in the U.S., the government would be forced to assess the quality of
struggling public schools and develop programs, such as teacher development and equal
allotment of resources, to help them improve. With these programs, students, regardless of race
or class, would ideally have more equal access to a good education, which would lead to better
preparation and more opportunities after graduation for jobs and postsecondary education. In
my opinion, this idea is not guaranteed to be successful. President Bush’s “No Child Left
Behind” policy attempted to set national standards for public education by offering more
funding to schools as a reward for doing well in reference to certain criteria (e.g. graduation
rate) established by the government. This policy has been largely unsuccessful in improving
the public school system because it does not offer struggling schools any support to improve.
The success of this idea depends on implementation, meaning whether or not the government
creates a support system for all schools to improve and maintain success. Wilson also suggests
that by increasing the interaction between suburbs and cities, the life chances of poor black
people living in American urban centers can be improved. He suggests that the U.S. do this by
restoring the federal contribution to the city budget 2 and increasing the employment
opportunities. This would help because by increasing the city budget, public transportation to
the suburbs could be improved and more businesses could be brought to the city. These
improvements would create more employment opportunities, helping poor neighborhoods
become financially stable. According to Wilson, there is evidence that cities and suburbs are
economically interdependent. Without a thriving urban center, the surrounding suburbs will,
over time, experience a decline in growth and financial stability. Without access to the
surrounding suburbs, people living in urban centers will have greatly decreased employment
opportunities, which will eventually lead to increased poverty and financial instability. I agree
with this idea because Washington, D.C. is an example of how cooperation between the suburbs
and cities affects the two. The positive side can be seen when looking at the thousands of people
who commute to the city every day in cars and public transportation to get to work. For the
most part, the places where these commuters live and the areas where they work are thriving
financially. The negative side can be seen when looking at the areas of Washington, D.C. where
there is very minimal public transportation and very few businesses. These areas and the
immediately surrounding suburbs are not thriving financially and are largely comprised of low-
income families. Interaction between suburbs and cities is beneficial for both areas and
improves the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers. As an
immediate solution, he suggests the creation of job placement centers that get potential
employees “job-ready.” Job placement centers would be beneficial because employers would
be confident that these candidates “understand and appreciate employer expectations such as
showing up for work on time and on a regular basis, accepting the 3 orders of supervisors, and
so on” (Wilson, 224). Having job placement centers in the inner city would also help improve
the informal job information network that is meant to keep people informed of job openings
not advertised publicly, but that is lost as more and more people in a community lose work. I
agree with this idea because it would help eliminate assumptions the employer might have
about the candidates from the job placement centers. Interviewing with someone who has not
already assumed negative things about a candidate’s abilities would improve that person’s
chances of getting and maintaining a job. This success would benefit the candidate and the
candidate’s community, by helping support the informal job network. Wilson has many good
suggestions for how to solve the many problems faced by poor blacks in America’s urban
centers. Many of them, if implemented in a way that the poor and non-poor benefited, would
be successful. It is important though that the programs are implemented in a way that allows
them to benefit the poor and the non-poor, because, in the last century, it has been seen that
universally-targeted programs are much more successful (i.e. they last longer and impact more
people) than programs targeted at poor people. The War on Poverty is an example of a targeted
antipoverty program that was largely unsuccessful and not well received by the public. Started
in the early 1960s, the War on Poverty was a series of programs targeted at helping poor people
become more financially stable. The programs included Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing
subsidies, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. According to American’s Hidden
Success, a study by John Schwarz, “economic expansion between 1965 and 1972 lifted out of
poverty only about one-tenth of the 21.3 percent of Americans who were below the poverty
line in 4 1965. Government programs, on the other hand, lifted above the poverty line more
than half of the remaining number” (Skocpol, 3). While these programs succeeded in helping
many poor people, they could not maintain broad support among non-poor Americans, namely
politicians. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan successively cut funding for these social
programs, largely as a result of political attacks from angry Democratic leaders. They did not
want to support programs supported by people, mostly Democrats, who were hostile towards
their administration. By the 1970s, public opinion had significantly decreased for government
aid to minorities and public social programs. Support especially decreased for programs
stigmatized as being targeted at poor blacks. The War on Poverty failed because the majority
of the country saw it not as a benefit, but as a burden, in that they paid taxes to support the
programs but saw no personal reward. On the other hand, universally-targeted programs have
been much more successful. One such example is the Civil War veteran’s benefits policy.
Between the 1870s and early 1900s, veterans’ pensions, disability, and survivors’ benefits were
given out on a large scale to men who could prove that they had served in the Union army.
According to “Social Policy: Fighting Poverty without Poverty Programs” by Theda Skocpol,
by 1910, approximately 29 percent of American men over age 65 received benefits. While there
were ethnic differences in the distribution of the benefits (i.e. pensions went to native-born
Northerners and northern and central Europeans who had come to the North before the 1860s,
and not to blacks and southern and eastern European immigrants who had fought for the Union
army), the veterans that did receive benefits ran the gamut of class, from those who were
economically disadvantaged to those who had been successful during their working lives.
Participation in this program was seen as honorable by veterans and non 5 veterans alike, and
received support from both the Republican and Democratic parties. At the height of its success,
Civil War benefits reached more than 90 percent of surviving veterans. This universally-
targeted program was successful because it benefited the advantaged and disadvantaged,
gaining it support from people of different socioeconomic backgrounds and political
affiliations. Social programs that benefit people of different classes and ethnicities have been
seen in recent history to be much more successful than programs specifically targeted at poor
people. This occurs because more people, namely policymakers, can “positively relate” to the
purpose of and need for the program. Needs, such as veteran benefits, child support, job
training, and child-care assistance, that affect advantaged and disadvantaged Americans are
universal and can be understood by people of all different backgrounds. Universally-targeted
programs benefit people of all classes and races, gaining them broader support and a better
chance to improve the life chances of poor black people living in American urban centers.
