Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
Result of Government Antipoverty Programs Concerning Poverty
Poverty
The issue of poverty is not confined to urban settlement space alone. People through –
out the metropolitan region suffers its effects. Poverty is caused by the uneven development
of the economy. In the 1950s, despite growing affluence, large numbers of
Americans were poor, with some living in appalling conditions (Harrington, 1962).
At the time, it was recognized that there were poor people in rural areas as well as urban
places. As a result of government antipoverty programs such as the War on
Poverty, the poverty rate declined to about 12.1 percent in the 1960s. In the 1970s
and 1980s, however, the rate rose again and reached levels comparable to Depression era
statistics; roughly 20 percent of the total population was living at or below the
poverty line in the 1980s (Wilson, 1987). Today, as a consequence of our current economic
meltdown, unemployment and poverty have hit unprecedented levels and the
problem remains our most serious domestic issue.
In 2008 the federal government issued guidelines that defined poverty for a family
of four as $21,200 in yearly income for the contiguous United States, with Alaska and
Hawaii slightly higher at $26,500 and $24,380, respectively (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2009). It is difficult to figure how a family of four can
manage on this budget, particularly for those living in urban areas with high rents and
food costs. Today there are many more people living at or below this rate than in
2008; over 40 million, or about 14 percent of the population, in fact. Another indicator
of poverty is whether people possess health insurance. In 2007, before the economic
crisis hit, almost 16 percent of Americans had none.
Poverty can be considered an urban problem because of its concentration in large
city neighborhoods, as the sociospatial perspective suggests, although the range of
poverty rates for all cities in the United States is quite broad. Cleveland and Detroit,
for example, had rates above 30 percent in 2007, while the rates in their surrounding
suburban areas were much less. In general, the city as a spatial form concentrates the
poor in record numbers, and that is precisely the sociospatial effect that makes poverty
an urban problem. As William J. Wilson has observed, “To say that poverty has become
increasingly urbanized is to note a remarkable change in the concentration of
poor people in the United States in only slightly more than a decade” (1987:172).
220 9 : M E T R O P O L I TA N P R O B L E M S
Furthermore, the demographic profile of the poor is cause for alarm. In 2005,
17.6 percent of all children under eighteen years old were living in poverty. This
high figure is astounding for a developed country like the United States. During that
same year, a higher proportion of black (34.5 percent) and Hispanic (28.3 percent)
children under age eighteen were poor than were their non-Hispanic white counterparts
(10.0 percent) (http://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa07/popchar/pages/103cp.html).
Because the minority population of the United States is overwhelmingly urban,
these figures imply a concentration of poor minority group members, especially children,
in the large central cities and represents a major problem for the entire society,
not just for those living in central cities.
The spatial effects of concentrating the poor in a few neighborhoods contribute
to urban problems. For example, ghetto areas are the sites of the most violent criminal
and drug-related activities, so the urban poor are the most likely to be crime victims
and suffer the most from crime (Taylor, 1991). In addition, ghetto areas have
worse medical care than other parts of the city. A study of infant mortality rates in
New York found that the rate was almost twice as high in central Harlem and Bedford-
Stuyvesant (23.4 and 21 per 1,000, respectively), both well-known black communities,
compared to the city average of 13.3 per 1,000 (the national average was
10 in 1,000 in 1990).
I N C R E A S I N G I N C O M E I N E Q U A L I T Y,
U N E M P L O Y M E N T, A N D P O V E R T Y
The current economic crisis has had a number of troubling effects by increasing the
problem of poverty in the United States. Because of uneven development, however,
the burden of the crisis has fallen most heavily on the working class, not on corporate
executives or fully employed professionals. Consequently, as a recent report shows, the
income inequality gap has widened considerably. In fact, “Income inequality in the
United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression”
(Saez, “Income Inequality is at an All Time High,” New York Times, 2009).
Since 2000, the top 1 percent of American wage earners have doubled their share of
wages. The top 10 percent of employed people pulled in almost 50 percent of all
earned wages in 2007, a “level that is higher than any other year since 1917.”
As our economic crisis persists, unemployment remains high (it was close to 10
percent in July 2009). According to a federal government report in June:
Unemployment rates were higher in June than a year earlier in all 372 metropolitans
areas, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported
today. Eighteen areas recorded jobless rates of at least 15.0 percent, while
9 areas registered rates below 5.0 percent. The national unemployment rate in
June was 9.7 percent, not seasonally adjusted, up from 5.7 percent a year earlier.
I N C R E A S I N G I N C O M E I N E Q U A L I T Y , U N E M P L O Y M E N T , A N D P O V E R T Y 221
Among the 369 metropolitan areas for which nonfarm payroll data were available,
352 areas reported over-the-year declines in employment, 16 reported increases,
and 1 had no change. (Hall, 2009)
Furthermore, statistics on job loss indicate that the phenomenon is greater in
many of our largest multicentered metropolitan regions (not just cities). Thus the
economic crisis concentrates the poor and the unemployed in these areas.
Of the 49 metropolitan areas with a Census 2000 population of 1 million or
more, Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich., reported the highest unemployment rate
in June, 17.1 percent. The large areas with the next highest rates were Riverside–
San Bernardino–Ontario, Calif., 13.7 percent; Charlotte–Gastonia–Concord,
N.C.–S.C., 12.4 percent; Las Vegas–Paradise, Nev., 12.3 percent; and Providence–
Fall River–Warwick, R.I., 12.1 percent. Eighteen additional large areas
posted rates of 10.0 percent or more. . . . All 49 large areas registered over-theyear
unemployment rate increases of at least 2.0 percentage points. (U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2009)
Loss of a job has negative ripple effects on the economy that bring other jobs into
jeopardy. Proposed employment creation to combat this problem so far has not materialized,
giving people cause for substantial worry that the economic recovery will
take considerable time. Another negative effect of increasing poverty and unemployment
is that it impacts the housing market. In fact, because the United States has
failed to provide an adequate supply of affordable housing, the banks that provided
loans to people who could ill afford them helped pave the way for the present economic
crisis. Consequently, the issues of poverty, income inequality, and unemployment
are compounded and mixed in with the country’s equally large housing crisis.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|