Poverty, Part 2
Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:42
I remember learning about a phenomenon called the cycle of poverty in an undergraduate class in college. For me, it was a stunning revelation about how public efforts aimed at helping prevent tragic conditions like starvation, exposure, and other unacceptable living situations sometimes create self-perpetuating systems that also produce unintended and unfortunate side-effects. These well-intentioned programs may establish an effective floor below which few will fall, but at the same time may incentivize or force others to drop to the level of the new floor. For example, although fewer people may die of starvation because of subsidized food programs, more people may became impoverished because the income limits required to qualify for food subsidies can only be met by allowing one’s current financial situation to deteriorate. The new incentive of subsidized food can become a disincentive for people to earn enough to stay above the income level where one must buy one’s own food. This situation produces a perpetuating cycle of poverty because it creates a gap between the income limit to qualify for public support and the income required to live independently. It widens the divide between the haves and the have-nots in society. For those able to work, the requirements to bridge that gap and earn enough to rise out of poverty becomes too great a hurdle and takes too much time and effort for many folks to cross. The additional education, training, and/or work experience required to earn a higher income forces folks to choose between (1) struggling without public assistance for a time, or (2) remaining on public assistance indefinitely and foregoing what is necessary to qualify for a job that could lift them out of poverty. And that is a stark, if oversimplified illustration of the cycle of poverty.
Before proceeding, I should acknowledge the controversial and shaky ground I am treading upon. On the one hand, I doubt anyone accepting any form of government assistance would consider it more than barely adequate for their needs, if that. Keeping one’s head above water on public assistance is a constant and often humiliating struggle. On the other hand, most tax-payers who fund the subsidization programs have financial challenges of their own, aside from paying their taxes. The collective dilemma is to create effective mercy systems that meet the most desperate needs of the former group without forcing or incentivizing those in the latter group closer to or into the situation of the former.
Most Western societies have complex webs of social supports intended to establish living conditions below which they attempt to keep folks from falling. In ages past, perhaps, greater numbers of those in desperate circumstances would perish because there were no social safety-nets to catch them, unless they had family or friends willing and able to help. Because there are many legitimate demands on limited public funds, the minimum acceptable living conditions established by public policy are typically well below the living conditions of the majority of folks. And so there is a constant balancing act in public forums between the interests of those advocating for the needs of the poor and those advocating on behalf of the subsidizers of the needs of the poor. One unfortunate result is the American caste system where visible chasms develop between the living conditions of the poor and those of the non-poor. Those experiencing poverty may not starve, but most will not thrive, either. And the cycle of poverty assures the many will remain where they’re at.
Because of the push against raising taxes and the pull for more public funding for the disadvantaged, government bureaucracies grow in size, expense, and complexity as they establish, verify, and monitor how and to whom what types of public assistance will be granted. When I was learning about the cycle of poverty, decades ago, the best estimates were that for every dollar spent on public assistance programs, only about 20 cents went to the actual need. The rest was tied up in regulations, means testing, fraud prevention, and other bureaucratic red-tape. My cynical guess is that the percentage of public-assistance funds that directly assists someone in need is far less than 20% today.
No one wants themselves or others falling into living conditions with tragic consequences, at least not if it can be helped. No one who works hard to support their household without assistance wants to see anyone receiving public assistance live in better conditions than they do, either. And no one wants people to get sucked into a whirlpool of downward mobility that disincentivizes efforts to keep one’s own head above water. The responses provided by governmental departments are necessarily complex and inefficient. Non-government organizations (NGOs) often operate closer to the need and with less complexity. Jesus’ instruction to his followers, as individuals, is simple but challenging: “Give to everyone who begs from you…”
This is the 10th in a series about The New-Old Social Pandemic. The opinions expressed here are mine. To engage with me or to explore contemplative spiritual direction, contact me at ghildenbrand@sunflower.com.
Contemplating Grace 