More Piling on The Post's Edwards and Poverty Article
Wonks like Jared and me habitually complain that journalists pay too little attention to policy. But then when we read an ill-informed piece like the one in today’s Washington Post dismissing John Edwards’ anti-poverty proposals, we get even more infuriated. Maybe the mainstream media should just leave things well enough alone and stay away from wonkery after all. In addition to Jared’s criticisms of the Post article, I’d add these (and I don’t have any connection to Edwards’ campaign either):
The Post says Edwards’ proposals “do not challenge liberal orthodoxies by, for instance, exploring private-school vouchers, even though supporters of the idea say it is justified by the same logic as Edwards’s housing voucher program: giving poor families a choice.” But housing vouchers and school vouchers, as implemented in the real world, aren’t remotely analogous.
The whole purpose of housing vouchers is to enable people living in high-poverty neighborhoods to move to low-poverty locations (where schools also have low numbers of students from impoverished families). Abundant research has shown that the section 8 housing voucher program, for example, has produced a variety of successful outcomes. In contrast, school vouchers, as they have been carried out in cities like Milwaukee and Cleveland, shift students from high-poverty public schools to high-poverty private schools. No valid evidence exists to demonstrate that school vouchers have done any good. What’s important from a policy standpoints isn’t vouchers or “choice” per se, it’s providing a mechanism that can effectively get families and students out of high poverty settings.
The Post article devotes a great deal of attention to the Clinton administration’s Moving to Opportunity program, which gave housing vouchers to low-income families so that they could move to better neighborhoods but which also gave them considerable leeway in where they could choose to move. As the Post emphasizes, the results were mixed, with the families experiencing better health outcomes but with students doing no better in school. The basic problem with that plan, though, was that the neighborhoods that many of the voucher recipients moved to weren’t much better than where they started. Students in the opportunity program attended schools with a free and reduced price lunch mean of 67.5 percent compared to 73.9 percent in the control group. The problem wasn’t with the idea of “moving families to opportunity,” but with a program design so reliant on the right’s revered value of “choice” that families elected not to move too far from familiar territory.
In addition to section 8 vouchers, public school choice programs geared toward promoting socio-economic integration have proven to be effective. (My Century Foundation colleague Rick Kahlenberg has more analysis here).
Research is abundant showing that when families and children are able to move from high-poverty neighborhoods and high-poverty schools to middle-class neighborhoods and middle-class schools, they do much better by a variety of measures without imposing costs on those already in the middle-class setting (as long as large numbers of the poor don’t move to the same place). John Edwards understands that, but unfortunately the Washington Post reporter writing about his proposals doesn’t. What’s “new” and “fresh” that Edwards should be praised for is the political courage to focus the public’s attention on this subject after decades of neglect and a set of ideas that, based on research and experience -- as opposed to focus groups and right-wing salesmanship – have the best chance of making significant progress.
In other words, they're saying, what marks the left as too static is that it doesn't embrace dumb proposals from the right? That is rather self-serving criticism.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 7, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what are Obama's and Hillary's ideas on this very neglected problem? Oh, none you say? What a surprise…
May 7, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is the difference between imposing our ideas on the Iraqis or on the urban and rural poor? None, I would submit.
If we want to ease American poverty, I would like to see a discussion about repairing existing homes to be safe (no lead and no asbestos) and efficient as well as close to clinics, police sub-stations, addiction treatment, fast buses to job sites, safe child care, and schools that not only teach but also provide the services some of these children desperately need.
Edwards' plan to scatter the poor all over the map is sniffingly dismissive that the poor can actually have a community. Reuse of resources, like urban homes, would be environmentally responsible, anyway. Why not try to improve the existing community instead of scattering it? Do you perhaps believe that a community does not exist among the poor? How is this different from the right who think it's all depravity? Both views are elitist.
May 8, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is true that "the poor will always be with us" in the sense that there will always be some group of people in society who are 'least well off.' It is true because there simply aren't enough of the highest quality [most desirable] "experience opportunities" available for everyone to experience them. There is only so much beach front property, only so much mahogany that can be harvested, only so many of the 'best' restaurants, entertainers, scenic views, etc. The varying scarcity of natural resources is what guarantees that there will always be rich and poor…distributions of money have nothing to do with it.
A serious effort to end poverty is therefore not an effort to make everyone rich or upper-middle-class, but is simply an effort to do whatever is realistically possible to improve the economic well-being of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. There is much that can be done. What in particular? Well, I'm someone who agrees with John Edwards that we need to look beyond the 'same old politics of incrementalism' and look in the direction of 'fundamental, transformational change.' For the sake of argument, let's start asking ourselves what the best deal is that we could realistically offer to the poor and lower middle-class?
The single most important thing we could do for those living in poverty is completely eliminate the problem of unemployment. I'm not talking about simply creating 'more jobs' for them, or providing them with training for jobs that we think might be available somewhere in the country; I'm talking about creating a jobs environment where there are more jobs available than there are people to fill them. Forget about any other considerations for a moment; let's just spend some time focusing on the many ways that the poor and middle-class would benefit if our political leaders were to create and maintain a constant labor shortage.
In such an economy, the Poor and Middle Class would soon discover that they'd be living in the best of all possible economic worlds. Yes, people would still lose their jobs as they do today, but it wouldn’t matter. New jobs would always be easy to find. Market forces would put constant upward pressure on wages because all employers would be forced to compete with each other for scarce labor. Many employers in a tight labor market would discover that they have an incentive to actually treat their employees with respect. For the first time, the poor would actually be able to enjoy a large measure of economic security (No, they wouldn't have specific-job security, but they would enjoy employment/income security.)
To put it quite plainly, there is nothing that society could do for the underprivileged that would be more kind, more helpful, or more generous than to maintain a labor shortage for them. What would it cost the rest of society---the upper-middle and upper classes in particular---to bestow this great blessing on the disadvantaged? The answer, in the purest of economic terms, is NOTHING. On the contrary, the rest of society would actually reap a great benefit from eliminating the problem of poverty in this way. Even the rich would enjoy an increase in the amount of real wealth they’d be able to consume.
The reason for this is quite simple: people who are not working do not stop consuming; they just aren't producing any of the stuff they consume. Somebody else is. As a society, we all become richer in real terms when all those who are idle become productive. If part of your productive output is no longer needed to provide for the basic consumption needs of the unemployed (because they are now producing for themselves), then that means more of your output becomes available to you, for your own consumption. When/if we employ all those who are able-bodied and able-minded in real wealth producing activities, everyone else automatically gets a pay raise IN REAL TERMS.
There are other real benefits that a maintained labor shortage would bestow on the wealthier classes. With jobs more than plentiful and wages on the rise, social pressure on those who are not working in the poorer neighborhoods would increase dramatically. With the elimination of all unemployment---and a dramatic reduction in idleness---crime rates would drop significantly, providing those who are not poor with an enhanced feeling of personal security.
Another benefit: Since the intelligent way to create and maintain a labor shortage is for Congress to increase its spending on a variety of public investments---e.g., infrastructure, education, environmental cleanup, health care unencumbered by paperwork headaches and qualification issues---both the rich and the middle-class would end up enjoying a higher quality of life as a consequence of the elimination of poverty through the elimination of unemployment. These are true economic investments, the kind that make us all wealthier in the long run.
And then there are the intangible benefits of eliminating poverty that would accrue to the wealthy. By allowing themselves to be taxed more, they would make it possible for Congress to eliminate poverty through increased expenditures on public investment. If it were made clear to the poor that the acquiescence of the wealthy to a higher level of taxation is what made it possible for them to finally enjoy true economic security, the lower classes would quite naturally feel a deep sense of gratitude toward the affluent, instead of resentment and hostility. What would that kind of feeling be worth?
Gratitude, a cleaner environment, a big reduction in crime, less highway congestion, a better educated populace…all are benefits that those at the top of the economic ladder would be able to enjoy if poverty were eliminated by eliminating all unemployment. If John Edwards wants to turn his dream into a reality, he would do well to emphasize loudly the ways in which the upper classes would benefit from the elimination of poverty and not allow the Republicans to frame his crusade as little more than a Robin Hood scheme to steal from the rich and give to the poor (guaranteed to fail, anyway, right George?).
"Don’t do it for them; do it for yourselves, if that is what matters."
(There is still one more major reason why the rich should want to eliminate poverty by eliminating unemployment: it wouldn’t cost them anything in terms of lost purchasing power to do so. See why this is true here.)
May 8, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you are describing in essence was the main thrust of the original War on Poverty and many, many subsequent efforts to revitalize impoverished neighborhoods. The track record, unfortunately, pretty decisively shows that those kinds of community redevelopment efforts failed. David Rusk, the former mayor of Albuquerque who has written extensively about urban poverty, likens those approaches to "walking up a down escalator." The forces working against the success of deeply impoversihed neighborhoods are enormous, and with only rare exceptions have community- based revitalization efforts done better than tread water. It's not about elitism. It's about trying approaches that have demonstrated success rather than pretty consistent failure. --Greg
May 8, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Post article implied the housing voucher program was a lot less successful than you indicated, but it didn't elaborate. Does anyone know how many cities it was tried in?
Property owners are the biggest obstacle to this idea. It's one thing to donate money or time to a Habitat House -- it's another to have a poor family move in next door in your middle class neighborhood.
May 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are two distinct voucher programs that my post discusses. The Moving to Opportunity program, which involved about 4,000 families in five states, was the one the Post focused on that had mixed results. This may be more than you bargained for, but a summary of research into that program is available here. The other program, which Edwards and I think should be greatly expanded based on its much better track record, is Section 8 housing. A summary of how it works and research about it is here. --Greg
May 8, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Could you submit an 800 word version of this as an op-ed to the Post?
This is a link to the op-ed submission page.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/opeds/submit/
May 8, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jorgesmythe,
Do you work for the Post? Otherwise, they generally don't accept op-eds that are basically critical of articles they have published in their news sections. I'm not really into banging my head against a wall. Thanks for the enthusiasm, though! --Greg
May 8, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good stuff on the voucher program that works. And Kroeger's onto something about creating a labor shortage. Still, the most damaging part of the Post piece was the insinuation that the Edwards' campaign has no interest in furthering robust economic growth, which has done more than any program in recent years to reduce poverty. I haven't seen a rebuttal of that point anywhere and I don't expect to.
So Edwards should pivot on this and begin talking about economic growth as a necessary backdrop for eliminating poverty and explain how he intends to grow the economy or keep it growing in addition to his steps to reduce poverty. If he ignores that angle and comes across as trying to rob from Peter to pay Paul he could blow his chances in the general election.
May 8, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure that we have made available all of the resources that I listed when the community based effort is viewed as a failure? I am quite tired to know of the three bus transfers that an elderly poor person needs to get to the doctor; or the elderly grandmother who needs to schlep a developmentally challenged grandchild to special classes five times a week through 3-4 bus transfers. How exactly does scattering these folks throughout the landscape ease these sorts of situations?
Are you restricting the discussion to the working poor who have a shot at success? What aobut the elderly? The mentally or physically challenged? The children being raised by the elderly? Drug addiction? I simply don't "get" scattering these poor folks throughout the suburbs and "hoping" they receive the resources they need.
Section 8 housing, as I understand it, is provided to working families or those undergoing some sort of job training. In a previous job, I was involved with providing utility service into section 8 housing and some folks were obviously working hard to make their lives work and others were still living in decrepit circumstances. I have a current friend who had to shovel out human excrement from her section 8 house after the tenant skipped. It's not as rosy as your articles imply.
Look, I don't mind helping folks, but we all better understand that a shiny house in the burbs will not be the answer to all circumstances. It's too simplistic. Lots of support is needed for a lot of these folks and it is simply not available--it wasn't available with the War on Poverty and, frankly, has never been available.
I simply don't see the answer as destroying communities in the "wish" that lives will get better when the problems some of these folks face require tons of supportive services.
May 8, 2007 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
thx i'll check it out
May 8, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not. Its unfortunate that this is their policy. Thanks for the response.
May 9, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink