Poverty is Systemic, and the Fix Needs to Be, Too
Traditional measures of economic well-being are inadequate to measure the reality that exists for too many. Third-quarter growth was…
Traditional measures of economic well-being are inadequate to measure the reality that exists for too many. Third-quarter growth was strong, unemployment is down and the stock market is up. All should be well with the country and the world.
As welcome as these bit of news may be, they only tell a small portion of the story, obscuring the reality too many live within while giving politicians the opportunity to proclaim political victory.
Periodically, however, bits of news leak out, shedding light on the underlying flaws in our economic system, a capitalism that sacrifices all to profit, that’s built on the generation of waste product and damage.
The latest news comes courtesy of a University of Chicago study, published by the Journal of Adolescent Health and reported on by The Guardian. The numbers are stark: 10 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 25 and 30percent of those between 13 and 17 “experience some form of homelessness unaccompanied by a parent or guardian over the course of the year.” The numbers, according to the report, attempt to go beyond traditional measures of homelessness and take into account not just those in shelters or on the streets, but those who spent time at friends’ or other unstable housing circumstances.
Overall, the report estimates that about 3.5 million young adults were homeless and that about “half of them involved explicitly reported homelessness while the other half involved couch surfing only.” Among the 13–17 cohort, the report estimates 700,000 homeless, about a quarter of whom had couch-surfed.
The causes are not surprising — the youngest have been kicked out of their homes or ran away, many escaping dangerous and abusive situations. Those in he older cohort may be working, but at jobs that do not allow them to pay for housing, and many live in areas without housing options.
These kids, like their older counterparts, tend to be invisible. They’re ignored by the mainstream press and its focus on the broader economy. They are ignored by politicians, who chase suburban voters and have been answerable only to those who can afford to pay for their campaigns.
And even when the plight of the homeless makes its way onto the public’s radar and is met with outrage, it rarely generates political energy, rarely triggers much more than a tendency toward charity. Don’t get me wrong, charity is important, is needed. These are human beings in need and we have a responsibility to help. Charity — clothing, food, cash — can address some of the more immediate needs, ameliorate some of the worst of the deprivation.
But charity is a limited and limiting response, at best. It will not end homelessness, hunger and poverty, and can divert us from longer term and systemic solutions. Economic reform is required. At a minimum, we need to recreate a vigorous and dependable safety net, though that too is limited.
To truly address these issues, we need to move away from a model of means-testing and mass bureaucracy, of forcing the poor to jump through hoops and to navigate a Byzantine web of rules and regulations before they are allowed to qualify for the most basic of assistance. These regulations might seem necessary — they’re justified as a way to ensure that limited resources make heir way to those in greatest need and to weed out the cheaters.
A different focus is needed, one that uses universality as its underlying principle and ensures that the staples of our lives are available to all regardless of individual circumstances. These staples — the necessities — include good housing and nutritious food, access to affordable health care, clean water and air, electricity and heat, clothing, transportation. This may seem broad to many, but one needs only envision a life without them to understand their importance. One can’t work a steady job if one is ill, if one does not eat, if one can’t get to work. So it’s foolish to ignore the broader array of needs when attempting to address poverty.
Poverty, after all, is not just a question of how much one makes, but also a question of how much one has to spend not just to survive but thrive as an individual.
I don’t have specific solutions, though I think it important that we explore approaches like universal basic income, universal healthcare that focuses on the whole patient, and tighter rules governing private firms that manage our public goods water, air, open space) or dispense necessities (energy, communication, transportation).
Our current conversations are a long way from this, and it is going to require a concerted effort by socialists, social democrats and all who think everyone deserves more than mere subsistence to change the debate.