Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Working poor
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Anti-poverty policies== Scholars, policymakers, and others have come up with a variety of proposals for how to [[poverty reduction|reduce]] or eliminate working poverty. Most of these proposals are directed toward the United States, but they might also be relevant to other countries. The remainder of the section outlines the pros and cons of some of the most commonly proposed solutions. ===Welfare state generosity=== Cross-national studies like Lohmann (2009) and Brady, Fullerton, and Cross (2010) clearly show that countries with generous [[welfare state]]s have lower levels of working poverty than countries with less-generous welfare states, even when factors like demography, economic performance, and labor market institutions are taken into account. Having a generous welfare state does two key things to reduce working poverty: it raises the [[minimum wage|minimum level of wages]] that people are willing to accept, and it pulls a large portion of low-wage workers out of poverty by providing them with an array of cash and non-cash government benefits.<ref name="Lohmann">{{cite journal|last=Lohmann|first=Henning|year=2009|title=Welfare States, Labour Market Institutions and the Working Poor: A Comparative Analysis of 20 European Countries|url=http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/4/489.short|journal=European Sociological Review|volume=25|issue=4|pages=489β504|doi=10.1093/esr/jcn064|access-date=5 November 2011|hdl=10419/27300|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Many{{who|date=July 2019}} think that increasing the United States' welfare state generosity would lower the working poverty rate. A critique of this proposal by [[Charles Murray (political scientist)|Charles Murray]] is that a generous welfare state would not work because it would stagnate the economy, raise unemployment, and degrade people's work ethic.<ref name="Murray">{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/losinggroundamer00murr_0|url-access=registration|quote=losing ground murray.|title=Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950β1980|last=Murray|first=Charles|authorlink=Charles Murray (political scientist)|publisher=Basic Books|year=1984|isbn=978-0-465-04233-3|location=New York}}</ref> However, {{as of|2011|lc=y}}, most European countries have a lower [[List of countries by unemployment rate|unemployment rate]] than the US. Furthermore, although Western European economies' growth rates can be lower than the US's from time to time, their growth rates tend to be more stable, whereas the US's tends to fluctuate relatively severely. Individual states offer financial assistance for child care, but the aid varies widely. Most assistance is administered through the Child Care and Development Block Grants. Many subsidies have strict income guidelines and are generally for families with children under 13 (the age limit is often extended if the child has a disability). Many subsidies permit home-based care, but some only accept a day care center, so check the requirements. However, in an academic research, half of the respondents linked aspirations to their tax refunds for financial support, even though they did not ask for specific governmental aid.<ref name="Sykes 243β267"/> Some states distribute funds through social or health departments or agencies (like this one in Washington State). For example, the Children's Cabinet in Nevada can refer families to providers, help them apply for subsidies and can even help families who want to pay a relative for care. North Carolina's Smart Start is a public/private partnership that offers funding for child care. Check the National Women's Law Center for each state's child care assistance policy.<ref name="care.com">{{cite web|title=7 Sources to Help Pay for Child Care|url=https://www.care.com/c/stories/3153/7-sources-to-help-pay-for-child-care/|website=care.com|access-date=8 November 2016}}</ref> ===Wages and benefits=== In the conclusion of her book, ''[[Nickel and Dimed]]'' (2001), Barbara Ehrenreich argues that Americans need to pressure employers to improve worker compensation.<ref name=Ehrenreich /> Generally speaking, this implies a need to strengthen the [[labor movement]]. Cross-national statistical studies on working poverty suggest that generous welfare states have a larger impact on working poverty than strong labor movements. The labor movements in various countries have accomplished this through political parties of their own (labor parties) or strategic alliances with non-labor parties, for instance, when striving to put a meaningful [[minimum wage]] in place. The federal government offers a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that's administered through workplaces. If a job offers an FSA (also known as a Dependent Care Account), one can put aside up to $5,000 in pre-tax dollars to pay for child care expenses. If both you and your spouse have an FSA, the family limit is $5,000βbut you could get as much as $2,000 in tax savings if your combined contributions reach the maximum.<ref name="care.com"/> ===Marriage=== Households with two wage-earners have a significantly lower rate of working poverty than households with only one wage-earner. Also, households with two adults, but only one wage-earner, have lower working poverty rates than households with only one adult. Therefore, it seems clear that having two adults in a household, especially if there are children present, is more likely to keep a household out of poverty than having just one adult in a household. Many scholars and policymakers have used this fact to argue that encouraging people to get married and stay married is an effective way to reduce working poverty (and poverty in general). However, this is easier said than done. Research has shown that low-income people marry less often than higher-income people because they have a more difficult time finding a partner who is employed, which is often seen as a prerequisite for marriage.<ref name="wilson, william julius">{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=William Julius|title=The Truly Disadvantaged|year=1987|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago, IL|isbn=978-0-226-90131-2|url=https://archive.org/details/trulydisadvantag00wils|url-access=registration|quote=william julius wilson the truly disadvantaged.}}</ref> Therefore, unless the employment opportunity structure is improved, simply increasing the number of marriages among low-income people would be unlikely to lower working poverty rates.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)