I have been trying to imagine a world in which David Shipler's
new book, The Working Poor: Invisible in America would enjoy success comparable to that of Michael Harrington's 1962 classic,
The Other America.
It was easier to stir voter interest in the problem of poverty
in the 1960s. The mood was different then, and the poor seemed
to be concentrated in a few geographical pockets, mostly Appalachia,
the South and inner-city ghettos. Today's working poor are
all over. That's why they are invisible.
Indeed, the news last week that might have been of the greatest
interest to the working poor, (if only they had the money
to buy the papers that reported it and the time to rerad them),
had to do with the tax bill that swept through Congress --
$146 billion, much of it benefiting middle class families.
The much-resented Alternative Minimum Tax was prevented for
another year from reaching those with lower incomes ($45,000
married and $33,750 single). A popular child tax credit was
continued at $1,000, instead of slipping back to $700. (A
credit is money the government pays you.)
Specifically excluded, however, was a measure pushed by Democrats
that would have sharply lowered from its current $10,000 the
income threshold necessary to qualify for the child credit.
Instead, as sharp-eyed reporter David Rogers of The Wall Street
Journal pointed out, the threshold will climb to $11,000 next
year, thereby carefully protecting the public purse from inflation
-- and putting the credit out of the reach of even full-time
minimum wage earners if they are the only wage-earners in
their family. An earlier edition
of Economic Principals described last year's shenanigans with
the same measure.
For those with the spark to read it, Shipler's book provides
an even-tempered introduction to a world in which small sums
of money like these (small, that is, for the United States),
make an enormous difference. There have been a steady
stream of works like this in recent years -- Barbara Ehrenreich's
Nickel
and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, the liveliest
of them; Jason DeParle's American
Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare,
the most touching; The Economic Policy Institute's biannual
The
State of Working America: 2004-05, the most comprehensive
and dependable.
But Shipler's book surely is the best tour d'horizon of an increasingly pressing problem for the United
States: the fact that some significant fraction of its workers
are trapped in low-paying dead-end jobs which produce standards
of living that never seem to change. Why? Here's what
happens, for example, when Shipler visited an H&R Block
office in a poor neighborhood in Washington, DC, after the
annual rush to file for the Earned Income Credit had passed.
"Each form the taxpayer needed carried a fee: $41 for
a 1040, $10 for an EIC, $1 for each W-2, and so on. Electronic
filing cost another $25. So a simple return with two
W-2s filed electronically would cost $78. But it didn't
stop there. Block has a smorgasbord of services for
people who lived in the edge. If you had no bank account,
your refund could be loaded onto an ATM card that charged
$2 per withdrawal. Or a temporary account could be opened
into which the IRS payment could be deposited for a fee of
$24.95. If you were enticed by Block's offer of a "rapid
refund" and wanted a check in a day or two, you paid
H&R Block an additional $50 to $90, depending on the amount
you were getting. The fee on 14th street could be as
much as $50 on a $200 refund up to $90 for $2000 or more."
That adds up to an annual rate of interest that could run
as high as 410 percent on $2000 and 2,281 percent on $200,
Shipler calculated, depending on the speed with which the
government paid. Ordered by a court to stopping describing
the loan program a "rapid refund," H&R Block
renamed the service a "refund anticipation loan."
Some 4.8 million taxpayers received such loans in 2000. "Poverty
is like a bleeding wound," writes Shipler. "It weakens
the defenses. It lowers resistance. It attracts predators."
Shipler was for many years a reporter for The New York Times.
He describes the working poor this way: "The man who
washes cars does not own one. The clerk who files cancelled
checks at the bank has $2.02 in her account. The woman who
copyedits medical textbooks has not been to a dentist in a
decade... They serve you Big Macs and help you find merchandise
at Wal-Mart. They harvest your food, clean your offices
and sew your clothes...
"Moving in and out of jobs that demand much and pay
little, many people tread just above the official poverty
line, dangerously close to the edge of destitution. An inconvenience
to an affluent family -- minor car trouble, a brief illness,
disrupted child care -- is a crisis to them, for it can threaten
their ability to stay employed. They spend everything
and save nothing. They are always behind on their bills...
Even when the economy is robust, many wander through a borderland
of struggle, never getting very far from where they started.
When the economy weakens, they slip back towards the precipice."
There are reasons why this problem has intensified. They
have to do mainly with computerization and globalization.
As MIT's Frank Levy and Harvard's Richard Murnane have written
in The
New Division of Labor: How Computers are Creating the Next
Job Market, these developments have sharply reduced the
number of assembly-line, clerical and other repetitive jobs
-- jobs traditionally held by high school workers. Meanwhile,
the number of jobs requiring better-educated workers has been
steadily increasing. The result is a glut of workers
competing for low-paid jobs, and a shortage of more highly-skilled
workers. Harvard University's David Ellwood carefully surveys
the outlook in his working paper, The Sputtering Labor Force
of the 21st Century.
There are solutions, too -- or at least palliatives. They
have little to do with the minimum wage. It is some combination
of education and training reforms of the sort advocated by
Levy and Murnane' of various forms of financial support to
individuals known as the "negative income tax" and
exemplified by the child tax credit; and various subsidies
to employers designed to increase the rewards to work -- the
enhanced-wage jobs offered to scholarship students by universities
being a case in point. The latter is perhaps the least
familiar and most promising idea; its economics have been
described by Columbia University professor Edmund Phelps in
a seminal book, Rewarding
Work: How to Restore Participation and Self-Support to Free
Enterprise.
It doesn't matter, of course, if no one cares -- if no one
reads David Shipler's book, if the program of "the Reagan
Revolution" really turns out to mean repealing the advances
of the New Deal. Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist recently
expressed the view
that people who care about equality and fairness are gradually
disappearing. "Two million people who fought in World
War II and lived through the Great Depression die every year.
That generation has been an exception in US history, because
it has defended anti-American policies. They voted for the
creation of the welfare state and for obligatory military
service. They are the Democratic base, and they are dying."
But the rising generation in politics is always the young.
That is why I remain so interested in the Deaniacs, the young
supporters of the candidacy of former Vermont Gov. Howard
Dean who were banished from the leadership scene -- for now.