The Truly Disadvantaged

The Truly Disadvantaged - The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy
by William Julius Wilson

The University of Chicago Press 1990
1. Urban poor – United Sates. 2. Urban policy – United Sates. 3. Afro-American–Economic conditions. 4. Afro-Americans
– Social conditions. 5. United States – Race relations.
ISBN 0-226-90130-0 cloth
ISBN 0-226-90131-9 paper

I’ll eat my hat if Barack Obama was not influenced by William Wilson’s ideas of a "hidden agenda": "The hidden agenda is to improve the life chances of groups such as the ghetto underclass by emphasizing programs in which the more advantaged groups of all races can positively relate." (P120) The politics of poverty programs is being enveloped by universal "give aways" from the federal government. That is why Barack Obama ran for President on a policy of tax credits to 90% of the population. It is easier to sell government programs if everyone is getting a piece of the action.

The Great Society and the major advances of the civil rights movement coincided with disastrous trends in Black male nonwork, Black female-headed households and persistent poverty in the Black community. The problem is to explain this paradox and then to propose social policies. Certainly the progress of civil rights was a great benefit to many who have now moved into the middle class. Any further cries of racism would not help and only muddle the problem of those left behind. The Great Society as compared to the New Deal focused assistance only for narrow groups and divided people more than it helped anyone.

William Wilson, in The Truly Disadvantaged - The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy is against implementing more of President Johnson’s War on Poverty programs and certainly finds racism an inadequate explanation for the disastrous mess he was observing in urban ghettos. As a liberal sociologist, he disagreed with those who, like Charles Murray, blame welfare for our problems. After the 1950's, the number of single mothers in the Black community skyrocketed and Black male unemployment changed drastically. The ratio of Black to White unemployment was certainly better before the advent of the civil rights movement in the 1950's. Wilson lays out, rather convincingly, that employability and marriageability of Black men should be considered as the likely cause of the paradox. In his research he looked at male unemployment rates, mortality rates and incarceration rates and compared the results with the number of available women of the same age. (Male marriageable pool index = MMPI.) His graphs show a tremendous divergence between the MMPI for Whites and Blacks beginning in the mid 1960's and growing straight through the 1970's. Except for California, MMPI provided a statistical explanation for why Black women do not marry or remarry as much as Whites.
I part company with Wilson, however on many of his other theories to explain urban unemployment. He supports a "mismatch" theory, which states that unskilled jobs and minimum education jobs have left for the suburbs. Greg J. Duncan in Years of Poverty – Years of Plenty, found no statistical support in longitudinal studies for the "mismatch" theory. (Duncan also found no support for any correlation between attitudes and norms and persistent poverty. People aren’t poor because they have lazy ideas.) Wilson also claims that Blacks in the urban ghetto suffer from "social isolation." They apparently don’t talk to outsiders; they are trapped in the city, and middle class Blacks who previously provided a buffer have left. In this day and age of cars, telephones, and television, this covered wagon idea doesn’t pass the smell test. I am not convinced that "ghetto life" causes the destructive behavior of nonwork.

Also at the core of Wilson’s suggestions, is the idea of "equality of life chances." This is the idea that goes beyond equal opportunity, and says that government must compensate for the fact that some people are born with a silver spoon and that their parents have used the government to gain advantages for their kids. The problem with this theory is that it tends to deny the existence of upward mobility. Lawrence M. Mead in The New Politics of Poverty, states very clearly that even those who start from the very bottom will not be poor if they simply work. Mobility, even for those who start at the bottom is alive and well. See Years of Poverty – Years of Plenty. However, to the extent that equality of life chances means removing government from the process of purchasing advantages for your children, you will get no argument from a libertarian. Wilson is just trying to justify another government program.

Wilson certainly has it correct that a good economy, that creates lots of jobs, is going to help any poverty program. Fiscal and monetary policy are certainly important for a good labor market. We even agree that job training and education are vital to compete in our modern technological economy. Urban education has failed many young individuals. Urban schools imbue little self-esteem and generally stress the wrong goals. It is also quite correct that employers often require more education than is needed for the particular job. And beyond a doubt, far too many young Black men are unmarriable and unemployable due to their history of street crime and criminal records. I would simply disagree with Wilson that the solutions will ever come from his proposed gigantic government programs.

A powerful libertarian anti-poverty program would address Wilson’s three requirements: job training, education and employability. Employers regularly spend far more on job training than all the government training programs combined. The training they provide is truly focused on actual employment, not the hope of a job. The question is, how do you design policy to encourage them to provide training for those who are the most disadvantaged? The answer is the elimination of the minimum wage laws. If employers are forced to pay a wage higher than they want, it is natural for them to be picky about whom they hire. When they do hire someone, they will select those who already have both experience and an education. Because of the minimum wage laws, employers can’t afford to pay for as much job training and they don’t need to. At the lower wages, the employer might take a chance on someone who has a criminal record, who has little experience showing up on time, or who has no idea about how to act with customers or coworkers. Lower wages can purchase a lot of patience while basic skills are developed.
At forced minimum wages, employers will also hire fewer people. For example, minimum wage laws give a competitive advantage to capital intensive companies like McDonald’s. Ma and Pa operations can’t afford the computerized drink dispensers and depend upon a larger work force. Forced wage increases hurt them more. And not all job seekers fit into the McDonald’s mold. Eliminating the bias in favor of capital intensive companies may result in a greater variety of opportunities. Without the minimum wage laws, maybe fewer employers would ship work overseas or maybe they could reopen a manufacturing facility in the inner city. This would mean a powerful shift of job training to those who need it the most.

As Lawrence Mead points out in The New Politics of Poverty, the problem of education for the poor is no longer the quantity but the quality. The educational opportunities that parents want may not be those that can be tested. They may be looking for: safety, self-esteem, and intellectual preparation for the world as they know it. There is only one way to accomplish each individual parent’s goals, and that is: vouchers. Give power to individual parents. It would be downright racist to say that Black urban parents could not or would not select exactly what is best for their own children. Those who are down and out are often the most interested in the success of the next generation.

Marriageability and employability are vital to helping the truly disadvantaged. Williams touches upon the solution but I am sure, even he, was afraid of the "the third rail" of American politics, no, not Social Security, the drug war. Drug prohibition makes the drug trade appear to be a profitable alternative to employment. The resulting criminal rap sheets make the job search very difficult. Criminal activity also affects marriageability. As a parent, would you want your daughter marrying an unemployed gang banger? Williams specifically defined "MMPI" to include both unemployment and incarceration rates. The commencement of the Drug War coincides almost exactly with the meteoric rise in single parentage. It is not just the arrests, the criminal records, and the drug use; it’s the money. Without drug prohibition there would be much less profit in street crime. It may not even be the actual money earned by drug dealers. It’s the dream of big money. The young adolescent in the ghetto looks up to the guy driving the big car and wearing the fancy jewelry. Once someone is considering participating in the drug trade, why not theft, robbery, gambling, prostitution, etc? Far too many urban Black men are climbing the ladder of gang seniority. In Wilson’s language, it "merits serious consideration" that our government, by treating drug use as a crime rather than as a medical condition, we have set into motion Black male nonwork and the corresponding refusal of Black females to marry the fathers of their children.

Wilson was correct to focus on marriageability and employability as the solution to the paradox that was seen in the late 1960's and 1970's. Civil rights and President Johnson’s War on Poverty were intended to bring about an end to poverty. Instead, studies found greater crime, drugs, nonwork and single mothers. Charles Murray in Losing Ground suggested that Black moms didn’t marry because welfare meant they didn’t have to. Wilson disagrees and suggests that Black male unemployment and incarceration rates meant that Black women didn’t want to. To solve the problem of the truly disadvantaged, Wilson correctly recommends a strong economy, job training and education. He got it right that Great Society programs would not help. President Barack Obama will probably try big government "give aways" to 90% of the population. This was one of the greatest fears of the founding fathers that too much democracy would mean that the people would vote themselves a "pint of beer." The truly disadvantaged will receive a check, but will they go to work, and will they be marriageable? I think not. Ending the minimum wage laws creates jobs and job training just where you want it. Ending drug prohibition and treating drug use as a medical condition ends the funding for gangs. Vouchers will empower poor parents to get a quality education for their children. Maybe then finishing your education, keeping a job and getting married won’t make you a chump.