Singh
114006240
Poverty Gaurav in the US
Response Paper 4
As per our class exercise on Monday (October 11), we found the immense
complexities in addressing heads of single-family households with effective policies.
Much of what our class had believed to be effective policies, were in fact already
implemented by government officials to combat a rising number of single-family
households. This matter is the very crux of poverty policy in the United States; by
reducing the number of single-parent households. The seven policies our small groups
devised varied from contraception education, to job placement seminars to increase the
pool of marriageable men. It proved that this concern is a complex, multi-faceted issue
that cannot be resolved using one particular initiative.
An argument presented in chapter eight of Bradley Schillers Economics of
Poverty and Discrimination, contends that larger poorer families (five or more persons)
could possibly be lifted out of poverty if they had one less child. Based on calculations
of income and family size, it was determined 330,000 families or 2 million individuals
would no longer be stigmatized as poor if they had one person less. I am not convinced
that this method of calculating the poor is sufficient to the overall goal of reducing
poverty. Reducing the number of people in a family does not necessarily mean the
family will automatically lift a family out of poverty. Granted, one less child will
alleviate living expenses, but I do not feel it would be enough to make a significant
change in the familys societal status. There are many other factors that need to happen
for a family to no longer feel the crippling effects poverty. of For example, if the head of
the family finds a job that pays significantly more than his current salary, it has a better
chance to help his family escape poverty. Although having one less child would certainly
help the familys situation, it is certainly not the only way for them to leave a poverty
stricken life.
An interesting aspect of Schillers article was the significant decrease of twoparent families and increase of single-parent families. According to table 8.1, which
depicts the living standards of children, there was a 20.3% decrease in the number twoparent families from 1960 to 2005 in the United States. Another alarming statistic was
the 15.4% increase from 1960 to 2005 of families headed by single mothers. As we have
already learned in class, single mothers head the majority of families in poverty. This
notion reminds me of Robert Rectors article in which he argues, If poor mothers
married the fathers of their children, nearly 75% of the nations impoverished youth
would be lifted out of poverty. After seeing the alarming statistics in table 8.1 presented
in Schillers article, I find Rectors argument to be even more convincing.
I concur with Schillers argument about unwed teenage mothers. He argues that
because these unwed teenagers are having children, they drop out of school with limited
work experience, and run the risk of falling into poverty. This can be seen as a perpetual
cycle and a normal occurrence for poor teenage women. Although it is difficult, I believe
implementing a policy to combat teenage pregnancies, especially in inner cities, is the
first step to the overarching goal of reducing poverty in the United States.