1.) The poverty line is disputed to be set too low by some, in order for poverty to be present there has to be many unfortunate circumstances existing, in other words, the standard of living for those in poverty has to be barely livable. Our SSI text states that the official definition of poverty in regards to nutrition is that a person is expected to live on less than a dollar per meal, this is not a healthy way to live long term (Kerbo, 2012). Another criticism of the poverty line is that it is measured on income prior to taxes being taken out. This means there are many families that are absolutely living in poverty but are not accounted for or even considered for any government benefits because of the way the income is calculated. One other …show more content…
Our SSI text states that on a family level the children have a shorter childhood and are thrust into adult-like situations at a faster rate, on an individual level poverty makes people feel helpless, dependent and inferior (Kerbo, 2012). I feel the culture of poverty theory does have some truth to it, such as the lack of ego and self-worth of poor people, it’s an obvious conclusion because being poor is not glamorous or enjoyable. I do think that stereotyping people in poverty to certain categories or deciding the traits the poor have is not fair. There is a line on page 263 of our SSI text that I completely agreed with in relation to this theory, “When we focus on specific values and actual behavior, we find wide variance among many groups in the society” (Kerbo, 2012). There are many people in poverty that decide to make a change and better their circumstances, there are many who don’t, there are many who are also perpetuating the circle of poverty in their families, regardless being poor does not mean they don’t have any values or are simply complacent in their …show more content…
Our SSI text explains that “the poor are reacting realistically to their situation”, in other words, the poor have learned to live with their situation and therefore they accept the fact that their values are as such because anything more would be unattainable for them (Kerbo, 2012). In this view of poverty, the reasons for poverty are not due to the differences from the poor and the middle class, it is due to their situations. I agree with this view of poverty more than the culture of poverty argument, because personally I feel most people in society are not complacent with being poor their entire lives. The situational view of poverty focuses on the social and economic circumstances that are the source of poverty instead of the individual reasons, like the attitudes, values and behaviors of the poor regarded with the culture of poverty view. There are certain times in some individual’s lives where they have to experience poverty, such as after an injury or a death in the family, they may experience poverty for a time, but it is not a learned trait through
Poverty as we know it is not a new issue at all, but none the less it’s a crucial problem that plagues much of the world. So much so, that it’s been stated that three billion people live off of less than $2.50 each day (dosomething). Poverty is a debilitating state to be stuck in, it takes so much more from people than just from a financial aspect. Someone who’s suffering from poverty have higher chances of experiencing a medical problem. People in this economic state also have much lower odds at succeeding in important areas such as school or finding a job. Poverty does not use a narrow view, instead it plays effects on people in much wider variety than just financially.
...amily members may cling to the idea that people experiencing poverty deserve to because admitting that individuals affected by poverty may not be responsible for their own challenges would cause too much discomfort. Questioning the concept of the undeserving poor, would affect those who adhere to it by causing them to question other cultural ideals. For instance, if my friend were to admit that poverty is not linked to deservingness, then my friend’s success is not linked to deservingness; this in turn, may challenge my friend’s own feelings of being exceptional and may make him question the reasons behind his own success. In addition, people may choose to believe the poverty myths about deservingness because it is safer for their self-perceptions than admitting that they are okay with and prospering in a social, political, and economic systems that harm others.
The idea that people of poor communities conform to a living standard and behavior is a concept described by Oscar Lewis as the culture of poverty. It is the belief that poor people consists of their own beliefs and values and behaviors. And more than 45 years later after the term, the culture of poverty paradigm remains the same: there is a consistent and observable culture that is shared by people in poverty. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the culture of poverty. differences in behaviors and values among those that are poor are just as significant as those between wealthy and poor. The culture of poverty is a construct of smaller stereotypes which seem to have implanted themselves into the collective conscience of mainstream thought as undeniable fact. However, as we will see, nothing could be further from the truth. Based on 6 most common myths of what defines poor from wealthy, I will provide evidence to the contrary.
situation they are in. “Poverty is such a personal experience that only the poor can understand it”
Everyone knows what the word poverty means. It means poor, unable to buy the necessities to survive in today's world. We do not realize how easy it is for a person to fall into poverty: A lost job, a sudden illness, a death in the family or the endless cycle of being born into poverty and not knowing how to overcome it. There are so many children in poverty and a family's structure can effect the outcome. Most of the people who are at the poverty level need some type of help to overcome the obstacles. There are mane issues that deal with poverty and many things that can be done to stop it.
Poverty in America is a very complex issue that can be looked at from many directions. There are a plethora of statistics and theories about poverty in America that can be confusing and at times contradicting. It is important to objectively view statistics to gain a better understanding of poverty and to wade through the stereotypes and the haze of cultural views that can misrepresent the situation.The official poverty line in America begins with a person making at or below $12,060. To calculate the poverty line for a family, an additional $4,180 is added to the base of $12,060 for each additional member(“Federal Poverty Level Guidelines”). According to the last U.S. census, over 45 million or 14.5% of Americans are at or below the poverty line(Worstall). At this level, the U.S. poverty level has not changed much from the 1970s when the government began a “War on Poverty.” However,
According to Schwartz-Nobel, America will lose as much as 130 billion in future productive capacity for every year that 14.5 American children continue to live in poverty (Koppelman and Goodhart, 2007). Sadly the seriousness of poverty is still often clouded by myths and misunderstandings by society at large. This essay studies the issue of poverty and classism in today's society.
The culture of poverty suggests that the poor people have bad hygiene, have diseases, lack education and can only be able to work hard manual labor, and this has been the prejudice associated with poverty-stricken people. People with a culture of poverty have no sense of history. They are people who hold strong feelings of helplessness, not belonging and marginality. The culture of poverty states that poor people are unmotivated and have poor work ethics. It also states that poor parents are uninvolved in their child's learning process because they do not value education, and this creates the cycle of poverty. In that, the children will lack the necessary skills to succeed in society. The culture of poverty also states that poor people are linguistically deficient and they tend to abuse drugs and alcohol, (Phillipe 2001).
After “re-evaluating the culture of poverty,” Mario Lewis Small asserts that political commenters think of culture as the sum of people’s norms and values and of the culture of poverty as the norms and values that cause people to enter or remain in poverty. Mark Gould also argued that since most Americans believe that all people are given equal opportunities, the failure of poor communities to “succeed” can only be attributed to traits internal to them and their communities. Lastly, Gould claims that it does not matter on what traits we focus, but often it is a culture of poverty that is inhibiting the inability of the people in these communities to take advantage of the opportunities that are open to
The culture of poverty tells us that poor people tend to feel helplessness, dependency, of not belonging and with a strong feeling of marginality. Anthropologist Oscar Lewis in his 1959 wrote a book, Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty. The culture of poverty theory states that living in conditions of pervasive poverty will lead to the development of a culture or subculture adapted to those conditions. This theory tells us that its hard for people living in poverty to come out of their way of thinking or behaving.
The Culture of Poverty is a theory that was introduced by Oscar Lewis, and is defined as “a label for a specific conceptual model that describes in positive terms a subculture of western society with its own structure and rationale, a way of life handed on from generation to generation.” (Lewis, p19) This concept which has helped shape the liberal discourse of the 1960s, purports that there are persons who remain mired in poverty because their lifestyle entrenches them in the low socioeconomic bracket which in turn obstructs their social mobility. David L. Harvey with contribution by Michael Reed, analyzed Lewis’ theory in their paper The Culture of Poverty: An Ideological Analysis. In this writing they concluded that Lewis was rooted in a Marxist background and argued that liberal and conservative thinkers have misinterpreted its application over the years. Harvey and Reed’s critique will be used to examine the conservative position on poverty that Lawrence Mead uses in his writing of The Logic of Workfare: the Underclass and Work Policy, and the validity of Harvey and Reed’s position will also be assessed.
Sociology focuses on the structure and organization of a society and how this correlates to social problems and individuals. The sociological thoughts on poverty have revolved around the importance of social structures and individual agency when explaining the prevalence of poverty over the years. In many accounts, specifically political ones and academic studies, the emphasis was put on the ‘undeserving poor’, which outlined individual behaviours and apparent moral failings as key causes of poverty. Most recently, there has been arguments on whether welfare system is responsible for encouraging and supporting claimants into welfare dependency. Another idea was brought around troubled families or families who have never worked as key explanations for poverty. Sociologists have used empirical evidence to challenge individual and sociological explanations for poverty (Sociological perspectives on poverty). They emphasize the importance of the broader context and the different opportunities open
There is an impression that has been built over the years that poor people do nothing but sit around and feel bad about themselves. Gina Rinehart, one of the world’s wealthiest women, tells the poor not to “‘just sit there and complain,’ [and] spend less time drinking or smoking and socializing, and more time working’” (Ellin). These impressions on the poor do not reflect on the actual reason as to why many are failing to find success. Underprivileged individuals are very capable of accomplishing their goals, it is just that they do not “have the repertoire of necessary responses. It is as though their brains' ‘emotional keyboards’ play only a few notes” (Jensen). The unfortunate disability poverty stresses on an individual does not come by
In fact, only two of the interviewees had this perspective of poverty. One interviewee stated that there are other factors, such as, being a product of your environment, and inequality of education and employment, that create a cycle, in which it can be easy to become a victim. Nevertheless, many poor individuals fail to see that cycle because “they lack perseverance and drive” to break the cycle, and put an end to being labeled as a victim. His beliefs are based on “being raised in a city riddled with poverty and a culture of people that fall victim to those factors” aforementioned. In fact, some of the people he is involved with, such as family and close friends, “lack perseverance and drive”, and never aspire for more; consequently, becoming complacent with just making ends meet. The other individual with this view on poverty said “ I feel if you grew up in poverty you can always do better for yourself”. She went as far as to say “they don't know how to budget their money”. Admittedly, poor people do have trouble budgeting their money, however, it is often not their fault; as Mullainathan demonstrated with the Family Feud experiment and Feinberg cleverly phrases “scarcity, no matter whom menaces, inevitably leads to more
In conclusion, sometimes actions take place that changes a person’s outlook on life and as you can see poverty is one that can have a huge effect on not only one person, but also the people around him/ her.