Poverty

Poverty is a structural failing

Through an empirical research regarding America’s poverty, there has been a focus on individual characteristics that tends to explain the different patterns and the occurrence of poverty. By focusing mainly on the individual attributes which cause poverty, community scientists have missed the fundamental dynamic of American poverty. The research has shown who lose at the economy game rather than how the game produces losers (Haveman et al, 2015). The American poverty is structural failing at political, economic and social levels. It has been contributed by lack of enough jobs in the economy that can deal with the growing population that can drive the families out of poverty. The high rates of poverty in the United States have been greatly contributed by social safety ineffectiveness and a very consistency and systematic nature of poverty that has been indicated by the risk of impoverishment by a large number of Americans in their life course (Haveman et al, 2015).

On one side poverty has been seen as a result of individual failings. This perspective outlines specific attributes of the individuals to have contributed to their poverty. The attributes include lack of virtuous morality, industrious job ethic, little education, and very competitive labor markets that require skilled workforce. On the other hand, poverty has been seen to be periodically interpreted due to the failings of the structural levels which are as a result of the economy inability to create sufficient respectable paying jobs (Best, 2013). There has been a dominant perspective of individual falling into poverty has been conceptualized through the consequences of the individual deficiencies and failings. Through social survey poverty has been consistently ranking by laziness, low ability and lack of efforts by individuals as they are the main important factors that connect to poverty. Structural reasons in America that cause poverty are discrimination and unemployment that are considerably less important (Rosenblum & Travis , 2016).

The analysis emphasizes that basic and the primary cause f poverty is the individual attributes. The increase in dependency has increased poverty levels among individuals within the community. There has been virtual absence among individuals compared to individualized strategies and measures in human capital and family backgrounds. There has also been a reduction of gender and race which a little more than demographic compared to structurally comprised categories. Characteristics if individuals can explain the approach the individuals have to fight the poverty vice (Haveman et al, 2015).

Poverty has been greatly shaped by varying factors such as age, gender, race, residence and family factors. Other demographic factors such as the giving birth outside marriage, having a large number of children and having them at an earlier age have been closely linked to poverty. Individuals who lack human capital are at a risk of poverty compared to individuals who have an access to human capital. Physical disabilities that have a way of interfering with the individual’s ability to engage in the labor market have been seen to elevate poverty (Best, 2013). Motivation and attitude are casual factors that may lead to poverty. Divorce and separation have also been some of the factors that contribute to poverty. Family structures such as having housewives than working women have also been seen to cause poverty due to the numerous needs a family man has to meet. This is because all the income has been exhausted leaving less or nothing for development. Illness and incapacitation are contributing factors to poverty as many funds are used to treat the illness rather than focus on another thing that may help in eradicating poverty (Haveman et al, 2015).

Being one of the wealthiest countries in the world there rises the need to rethink on how to kick out poverty or at least minimize it. To begin with, the traditional manner of thinking regarding poverty should change. This is because poverty has been viewed as a result of the individual failings and inadequacies. They include failing to work hard, lack of sufficient skills that are required and poor or bad decision making (Rosenblum & Travis , 2016). It has been perceived that they bring the poverty to themselves which is not entirely true. Poverty should be understood from the basic levels in order to implement strategies that will be productive. There should be economic opportunities for all in order to get rid of over-reliance, increase individualism and reward hard work “Because poverty is seen as more fluid and contingent, the techniques used to manage it must also be more flexible and proactive” p. 110 (Best, 2013). The mindset that has influenced the common public attitudes regarding the poor should change. This will help in fostering the poor, encouraging them which will help them realize the great potential they have and what they can do in order to improve their livelihood.

There should be a fundamental shift in thinking of how poverty only affects the poor when in reality it affects everyone. It should be a problem that everyone addresses as it concerns everyone by trying not to avoid the issue. There should be a considerable amount of money spent on the social problems that are directly connected to poverty such as medical, family and workforce problems. “Who is at risk of poverty and its consequences?”p. 444 (Rosenblum & Travis , 2016). It is true to say that everyone will be affected which means there is the need of shifting the focus to poverty reduction as it is a result of individual failing, economic and political factors.

 

Reference

Best, J. (2013). Redefining Poverty as Risk and Vulnerability: shifting strategies of liberal economic governance. Third World Quarterly, 34(1), 109-129. doi:10.1080/01436597.2013.755356

Haveman, R., Blank, R., Moffitt, R., Smeeding, T., & Wallace, G. (2015). THE WAR ON POVERTY: MEASUREMENT, TRENDS, AND POLICY. Journal Of Policy Analysis & Management, 34(3), 593-638. doi:10.1002/pam.21846

Rosenblum .K. E  & Travis TM. C(2016). The meaning of the difference American Constructions of Race and Ethnicity, Sex andGender, Social Class, Sexuality, and Disability. McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121