貧窮是多么昂貴

By+Barbara+Ehrenreich

About 50 years ago， President Lyndon B. Johnson1 made a move that was unprecedented at the time and remains unmatched by succeeding administrations. He announced a War on Poverty， saying that its “chief weapons” would be “better schools， and better health， and better homes， and better training， and better job opportunities.”

So starting in 1964 and for almost a decade， the federal government poured at least some of its resources in the direction they should have been going all along： toward those who were most in need. Longstanding programs like Head Start， Legal Services， and the Job Corps were created. Medicaid was established. Poverty among seniors was significantly reduced by improvements in Social Security.2

Johnson seemed to have established the principle that it is the responsibility of government to intervene on behalf of the disadvantaged and deprived. But there was never enough money for the fight against poverty， and Johnson found himself increasingly distracted by another and deadlier war—the one in Vietnam3. Although underfunded， the War on Poverty still managed to provoke an intense backlash4 from conservative intellectuals and politicians.

In their view， government programs could do nothing to help the poor because poverty arises from the twisted psychology of the poor themselves. By the Reagan era， it had become a cornerstone of conservative ideology that poverty is caused not by low wages or a lack of jobs and education， but by the bad attitudes and faulty lifestyles of the poor.5

Picking up on this theory， pundits and politicians have bemoaned the character failings and bad habits of the poor for at least the past 50 years.6 In their view， the poor are shiftless， irresponsible， and prone to addiction.7 They have too many children and fail to get married. So if they suffer from grievous material deprivation， if they run out of money between paychecks， if they do not always have food on their tables—then they have no one to blame but themselves.

In the 1990s， with a bipartisan attack on welfare， this kind of prejudice against the poor took a drastically misogynistic turn.8 Poor single mothers were identified as a key link in what was called “the cycle of poverty9.” By staying at home and collecting welfare， they set a toxic example for their children， who—important policymakers came to believe—would be better off being cared for by paid child care workers or even， in orphanages.

Welfare “reform” was the answer， and it was intended not only to end financial support for imperiled families， but also to cure the self-induced“culture of poverty”that was supposedly at the root of their misery.10 The original welfare reform bill—a bill， it should be recalled， which was signed by President Bill Clinton—included an allocation of $100 million for “chastity training” for low-income women.11

The Great Recession12 should have put the victim-blaming theory of poverty to rest. In the space of only a few months， millions of people entered the ranks of the officially poor—not only laid-off blue-collar workers， but also downsized tech workers，13 managers， lawyers， and other once-comfortable professionals. No one could accuse these “nouveau14 poor”Americans of having made bad choices or bad lifestyle decisions. They were educated， hardworking， and ambitious， and now they were also poor—applying for food stamps15， showing up in shelters， lining up for entry-level jobs in retail. This would have been the moment for the pundits to finally admit the truth： Poverty is not a character failing or a lack of motivation. Poverty is a shortage of money.

For most women in poverty， in both good times and bad， the shortage of money arises largely from inadequate wages. When I worked on my book， Nickel and Dimed： On （Not） Getting by in America16， I took jobs as a waitress， nursing-home aide， hotel housekeeper， Wal-Mart associate， and a maid with a housecleaning service. I did not choose these jobs because they were low-paying. I chose them because these are the entry-level jobs most readily available to women.

What I discovered is that in many ways， these jobs are a trap： They pay so little that you cannot accumulate even a couple of hundred dollars to help you make the transition to a better-paying job. They often give you no control over your work schedule， making it impossible to arrange for child care or take a second job. And in many of these jobs， even young women soon begin to experience the physical deterioration17—especially knee and back problems—that can bring a painful end to their work life.

I was also dismayed to find that in some ways， it is actually more expensive to be poor than not poor. If you cant afford the first months rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment， you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. If you dont have a kitchen or even a refrigerator and microwave， you will find yourself falling back on convenience store food， which—in addition to its nutritional deficits—is also alarmingly overpriced. If you need a loan， as most poor people eventually do， you will end up paying an interest rate many times more than what a more affluent borrower would be charged. To be poor—especially with children to support and care for—is a perpetual high-wire act.18

Most private-sector employers offer no sick days， and many will fire a person who misses a day of work， even to stay home with a sick child.A nonfunctioning car can also mean lost pay and sudden expenses. A broken headlight invites a ticket， plus a fine greater than the cost of a new headlight， and possible court costs.19 If a creditor decides to get nasty， a court summons may be issued， often leading to an arrest warrant. No amount of training in financial literacy can prepare someone for such exigencies20—or make up for an income that is impossibly low to start with. Instead of treating low-wage mothers as the struggling heroines they are， our political culture still tends to view them as miscreants21 and contributors to the“cycle of poverty.”

If anything， the criminalization of poverty has accelerated since the recession， with growing numbers of states drug testing applicants for temporary assistance， imposing steep fines for school truancy，22 and imprisoning people for debt. Such measures constitute a cruel inversion of the Johnson-era principle that it is the responsibility of government to extend a helping hand to the poor.23 Sadly， this has become the means by which the wealthiest country in the world manages to remain complacent24 in the face of alarmingly high levels of poverty： by continuing to blame poverty not on the economy or inadequate social supports， but on the poor themselves.

Its time to revive the notion of a collective national responsibility to the poorest among us， who are disproportionately25 women and especially women of color. Until that happens， we need to wake up to the fact that the underpaid women who clean our homes and offices， prepare and serve our meals， and care for our elderly—earning wages that do not provide enough to live on—are the true philanthropists of our society.

約50年前，林登·B. 約翰遜總統向貧窮宣戰，這一舉措在當時可謂是空前絕后，即便是繼他之后的美國政府也無法與之匹敵。他說，“最有力的武器”將是“更好的學校、更好的健康、更好的家園、更好的培訓和更好的就業機會?！?/p>

因此，自1964年起之后的近十年時間里，聯邦政府在這一方面——為最需要幫助的人們——至少投入了部分物力和財力。他們早該這么做了。啟蒙計劃、法律服務計劃和就業工作團等政府項目應運而生，并一直延續至今。醫療補助計劃正式確立。社會安全保險的改進也大幅減少了老年人中的貧困人口。

政府有責任代表弱勢和貧困群體進行干預——這一原則似乎在約翰遜時代就得到了確立。但是，我們從來沒有足夠的資金對抗貧窮，而且約翰遜發現自己正日益為另外一場更致命的戰爭——那場在越南的戰爭——所牽制。盡管資金支持不足，“對貧困宣戰”仍然遭到保守知識分子和政治家的強烈抵制。

他們認為，這些政府項目對窮人沒有任何幫助，因為貧窮的根源在于窮人自身的扭曲心理——貧窮不是工資低或缺乏工作機會和教育所造成的，其罪魁禍首是窮人惡劣的心態和不良的生活方式。到里根任期時，這一觀念已成為保守意識形態的基石。

抱著這種觀念，權威人士和政治家們至少在過去的50年來一直對窮人的性格缺陷和壞習慣心存不滿。在這些人眼里，窮人是懶惰、不負責任的，而且容易染上癮癖。窮人不結婚，還兒女一大堆?！?br>