by Lawrence M. Mead
Basic Books 1992
ISBN 0-465-05962-7 (cloth)
ISBN 0-465-05069-7 (paper)
Poor - United States. United States - Economic Conditions. United
States - Economic policy
There is a small (.9% to 2% of the population) group of people who simply do not work. Their existence and behavior cannot be explained by the traditional liberal or conservative theories. Lawrence M. Mead asserts that lack of competence to work is the only remaining explanation. His recommendation is to change welfare into workfare which would "stringently" require people to work or receive training in order to receive government assistance. The core nonworking poor have the values consistent for employment but "...their belief that success is impossible becomes self-confirming." (P144) Experimental programs in San Diego demonstrated that welfare recipients were generally accepting of work requirements.
Economic growth, following WWII virtually eliminated the concept of the working poor. Poverty rates dropped dramatically during the late 1940's, 1950's and early 1960's. Of course a great many workers still experience bouts of poverty but their experience is generally brief in nature. The core of poverty is from non-work. It has become very personal and very difficult to explain.
Mead spent most of this very well researched book eliminating all other explanations. He covered economic growth, availability of work, unemployment, mobility within the economy, race, single mothers, daycare, disability, crime, drugs and many more alleged "causes" and impediments. None of them alone adequately explain the phenomenon on non-work. One of the most perplexing details is that good economic growth and tight labor markets have had only a small impact upon the core group of nonworkers. The 1960's and 1970's experienced high immigration, entry of the baby boom generation into the workforce and acceptance of women into all aspects of the economy. The number of jobs in the economy grew fantastically, but barely affected non-workers. Unskilled work was certainly available to those who wanted it. Immigrants with less education and no English were able to find plenty of work. You can’t blame the unemployment rate. Upon closer examination, most people don’t stay unemployed very long. The turnover rate is quite rapid. Those who want to work are back to work quickly. In general there is plenty of mobility within the economy. Most unemployed people quit their jobs to look for better opportunities. This leaves openings at all levels of the economy. None of these were satisfactory explanations for those who do not work.
Mead spent most of this very well researched book eliminating all other explanations. He covered economic growth, availability of work, unemployment, mobility within the economy, race, single mothers, daycare, disability, crime, drugs and many more alleged "causes" and impediments. None of them alone adequately explain the phenomenon on non-work. One of the most perplexing details is that good economic growth and tight labor markets have had only a small impact upon the core group of nonworkers. The 1960's and 1970's experienced high immigration, entry of the baby boom generation into the workforce and acceptance of women into all aspects of the economy. The number of jobs in the economy grew fantastically, but barely affected non-workers. Unskilled work was certainly available to those who wanted it. Immigrants with less education and no English were able to find plenty of work. You can’t blame the unemployment rate. Upon closer examination, most people don’t stay unemployed very long. The turnover rate is quite rapid. Those who want to work are back to work quickly. In general there is plenty of mobility within the economy. Most unemployed people quit their jobs to look for better opportunities. This leaves openings at all levels of the economy. None of these were satisfactory explanations for those who do not work.
A substantial core of nonworkers is made up of single mothers and Black men. Each explanation for their nonwork Mead reviews and dismisses. He claims marriageability of prime aged Black men has not changed enough to explain the sharp rise in Black female headed families. There is plenty of education available even if the quality is lacking. Racism may explain some income differentials and lack of access to better paying union jobs but it doesn’t explain non-work. Lack of daycare is not an adequate explanation. Daycare is most commonly supplied informally and inexpensively by friends and family. As a matter of fact, mothers prefer such systems over a formal setting even when the cost is paid by government. But mothers who want to work simply make the arrangements. Although Mead admits that welfare has had a significant impact on the number of single mother households (20-30% increase between 1955 and 1975), he still claims that it is insufficient to explain the extent of non-work and female headed households. The percentage of disabled non-workers is too small to explain this type of poverty. Mead dismisses crime as an explanation. Although short run profits from crime may seem attractive, even low wage jobs, he says, pay more. In the end, Mead’s conclusion is very direct. The core non-worker lacks the competence on his own to maintain employment.
If certain people don’t have the capacity, on their own, to maintain employment, he recommends that we change the rules of welfare and compel them to work, i.e. workfare. In part this is simply a rediscovery of the capitalist marketplace. It has always been said that the free market is cold and cruel: If you want to eat, you must work. Suddenly we have the same philosophy for welfare policy: If you want to receive welfare, you must work. Since the San Diego study shows that people were receptive of the work requirement, maybe the free market isn’t so cruel after all.
The Nonworking Poor in America, is extraordinarily well researched on the theories and explanations of hard core poverty. But I am left with a serious question. Just because there is no single explanation for non-work, can’t there be many reasons? I am perfectly willing to accept that some people are not competent to maintain employment, but I do not need to reject all the other explanations for non-work: the disincentives of welfare, the poor quality of our educational system, drug profits caused by the prohibition laws, the high cost of daycare services, the destruction of entry level jobs by the minimum wage laws. Remember we are only talking about .9% to 2% of the population. I prefer to believe that there is no magic bullet like "workfare" and competency but that it, along with many other reasons, explain nonwork.
I was particularly disappointed with Mead’s treatment of marriageability. Remember he claimed that the factors which affected marriageability had not changed enough to explain the vast changes in the rate at which Black women failed to marry the fathers of their children. William Julius Wilson in The Truly Disadvantaged, combined unemployment rates and criminal background as a test for marriageability. Therefore I found an article by Suren Basov, Mireille Jacobson and Jeffrey A. Miron titled "Prohibition and the Market for Drugs, An overview of recent history." World Economics Vol. 2 No. 4 October-December 2001. On pages 4 and 5 are graphs of the Federal government DEA budget per 1000 of the population 1920 -2000 and Total drug arrests per 1000: 1932-1998. I can’t prove causation and I don’t even know if there is a correlation, but I find it more than interesting that drug arrests, the DEA budget and single moms all skyrocketed in the mid to late 1960's. There must be some substantial relationship between criminal conduct, criminal background and marriageability. Looking at these statistics, I’ll put my money on the drug war and prohibition drug profits as a very meaningful cause of non-marriageability, non-work and persistent poverty.
The Nonworking Poor in America, is extraordinarily well researched on the theories and explanations of hard core poverty. But I am left with a serious question. Just because there is no single explanation for non-work, can’t there be many reasons? I am perfectly willing to accept that some people are not competent to maintain employment, but I do not need to reject all the other explanations for non-work: the disincentives of welfare, the poor quality of our educational system, drug profits caused by the prohibition laws, the high cost of daycare services, the destruction of entry level jobs by the minimum wage laws. Remember we are only talking about .9% to 2% of the population. I prefer to believe that there is no magic bullet like "workfare" and competency but that it, along with many other reasons, explain nonwork.
I was particularly disappointed with Mead’s treatment of marriageability. Remember he claimed that the factors which affected marriageability had not changed enough to explain the vast changes in the rate at which Black women failed to marry the fathers of their children. William Julius Wilson in The Truly Disadvantaged, combined unemployment rates and criminal background as a test for marriageability. Therefore I found an article by Suren Basov, Mireille Jacobson and Jeffrey A. Miron titled "Prohibition and the Market for Drugs, An overview of recent history." World Economics Vol. 2 No. 4 October-December 2001. On pages 4 and 5 are graphs of the Federal government DEA budget per 1000 of the population 1920 -2000 and Total drug arrests per 1000: 1932-1998. I can’t prove causation and I don’t even know if there is a correlation, but I find it more than interesting that drug arrests, the DEA budget and single moms all skyrocketed in the mid to late 1960's. There must be some substantial relationship between criminal conduct, criminal background and marriageability. Looking at these statistics, I’ll put my money on the drug war and prohibition drug profits as a very meaningful cause of non-marriageability, non-work and persistent poverty.
Lawrence Mead was probably a tremendous influence in the eventual reform of the welfare system under President Clinton. Those changes possibly limited the length of time that you could stay of welfare and also required participation in job training and job search. The world actually improved as a result of that move to smaller government. Maybe we should try it again. By ending welfare’s disincentive to work; by ending the profitability of the illegal drug trade; by ending the minimum wage laws, and by legalizing all daycare efforts, the number of nonworkers should be reduced to the absolute bare minimum. We know that virtually all people want to work. Would the number of nonworkers be substantially less than .9% to 2%? We can only hope. Thereafter if nonworkers want or need help, private charity should be able to handle the problems. Charitable efforts are more easily adapted to the specific needs of the individual. If they feel that job training or education or counseling is a necessary precondition for assistance, they will try it. But at least those in need and those receiving help will have to say thank-you.
It is important to place the topic of nonworkers into perspective. They are only a small percentage of those we term "poor." However as we saw in Years of Poverty - Years of Plenty almost all of the rest of poverty has to do with short term bouts of poverty. These people spend most of their lives being not-poor. For a good discussion of that problem, I would recommend Stealing From Each Other by Edgar K. Browning.
No comments:
Post a Comment