Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | January 14, 2014

Poverty moves into the ‘burbs

PBS had a segment on Saturday, anchored by Megan Thompson, called “Poverty rates surge in American suburbs.”  Here’s how it starts out:

MEGAN THOMPSON:  By all appearances, Leigh Scozzari is living a comfortable suburban life.  She baked cookies one recent afternoon with her four-year-old twins at her mom’s place in Shirley, Long Island – about 65 miles east of New York City.  Scozzari owns an SUV… the girls spend their days at a nice day care center …and Scozzari works a full-time job.

LEIGH SCOZZARI:  A lot of people look at me and they judge me just by looking at me, like, “Okay, well, she has a job, you know.  She– you know, she has a home and– you know, her kids look very well taken care of.  Why would she need any help at all?”

MEGAN THOMPSON:  Scozzari needs help because by official standards, she and her daughters live in poverty.  Her job as a certified medical assistant pays just over 19,000 a year and offers no benefits.  So Scozzari is on Medicaid, gets food stamps, and a government subsidy to pay for child care she could never otherwise afford.  This 30-year old single mom lives in that two-bedroom house with her mother and pays rent.  Her car has almost 200,000 miles on it and is in such bad shape Scozzari says she’s afraid to drive it.

Some things strike me as curious about this.  One is a question in my mind how new the “poverty” aspect of this trend actually is.  My own parents ran a household on an income below the official poverty level for the first 11 years of my life, back in the 1960s and early 1970s.  In the last of those years, we might not have been below the poverty level if there hadn’t been five kids.  But there were, and things were tight.  In a time when everybody had less “stuff,” we had a lot less.

We considered ourselves middle class, if we ever thought about it.  We lived in single-family homes, for the most part, whether as renters or mortgage-payers.  We never used Medicaid or food stamps.  Medical services cost a lot less then.  (A whole lot less.)  And we had the other big difference going for us: Dad and Mom were married, and ran the household together.  Dad worked for a salary (except for the years he was in medical school).  Mom mostly didn’t.

Leigh Scozzari’s situation underscores the point made by Ari Fleischer in an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal this weekend: that the ticket out of poverty, especially if there are children involved, is getting and staying married.

To say that poverty is surging in the suburbs is to look at the effect and not the cause.  What have moved into the suburbs are the social patterns that foster poverty.  At the top of that list is “fatherlessness” in all its forms, whether children are born out of wedlock; whether they are borne by teenagers or women in their 20s and 30s; and whether married parents divorce, with the mother getting primary custody – and very often falling promptly, with the divorce decree, into statistical poverty.

Fleischer observes:

Marriage makes a difference. Heritage reports that among white married couples, the poverty rate in 2009 was just 3.2%; for white non-married families, the rate was 22%. Among black married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for non-married black families was 35.6%.

We don’t know for sure all the particulars of Leigh Scozzari’s situation.  During the interview, we learn that state authorities are trying to find her twins’ father, who left before Ms. Scozzari knew she was pregnant.  We can guess from the dialogue that the two of them weren’t married.

And the point isn’t to sit in judgment on her or the father, but to observe that, statistically, they would be far, far more likely to have a middle-class household if they had gotten married and then had children.

The question, in turn, isn’t whether others can force them to do that.  The question is why others should subsidize their choice not to.  Is it good for people to have “income redistributed” to them in order to make bad choices more attractive or feasible?  Is it good for society?

The new face of poverty?

The new face of poverty?


Note the measures discussed in the PBS segment as ways of mitigating Scozzari’s situation:  food pantries, public benefits, chasing down the “deadbeat dad” to wring money from him.  The discourse seems to imply that public benefits should remain available even if Scozzari can earn more.  There is a discussion of how much Scozzari’s mother can help (she can’t), and whether Mom should give up her current, modest home and move them all into cheaper living conditions elsewhere (Mom doesn’t want to).

Society needs restructuring because of the economic realities of Scozzari’s situation, which remain stubbornly “poor” rather than “middle class.”  That’s the implication from the interview.

But in truth, all the vague implications are about “living down” to trimmed hopes and anxiously enforced rights, turning life into an endless series of anonymous, third-party-brokered material transactions.  It’s all about life’s exigencies – children, work, transportation, living quarters – being a burden, rather than each of those things being a blessing, an opportunity, a path toward the future.

And that, in turn, is because everything is discussed in the segment except the one thing that would be overwhelmingly likely to lift Scozzari and her children out of poverty, get them off public benefits, relieve Mom of unfair pressures on her own life choices, and give Scozzari more choice about whether and how much to work for pay while she has young children.  There’s one thing that can do all of that, and regularly does.

When you have that one thing, your material situation may not be very much different from Scozzari’s, at a given point in time.  For some period of your life, you may still have an old car that’s scary to drive, not enough spending money, constant worry about your bills.  But everything looks different, when you have that one thing.  Your cares look like blessings; your burdens like investments in the future.

The state can’t simulate, by other means, that one, transformative condition.  The state, meanwhile, is running out of other people’s money.  America has seen a seminal loss since 2008 of nearly 92 million working-age people from our labor force, and we’re more than $17 trillion in debt today – counting only what the federal government owes.  Even if there were some good reason to, it simply isn’t possible to “redistribute” enough income to artificially turn marriage-less-ness and fatherlessness into a middle-class-lifestyle choice.

We are comparatively fortunate in our poverty today.  It looks very different from the poverty of a century ago, when someone like Leigh Scozzari would have been lucky to get a job as a laundry maid or soup-kitchen servant; might well have been deemed unmarriageable (or been forced out of desperation into a deeply unhappy marriage); and might even have had to give her twins up to a children’s home or orphanage.

We could also help the poor right now – mitigate the expense of everyday life – by getting rid of the crushing burden of regulation we have taken on over the last century.  That would ease things up for Leigh Scozzari and her mother, as they struggle to keep a life going in suburban New York.

But if we want to see people like Scozzari in the middle class, we’re going about it the wrong way.  Devalue men, women, marriage, and traditional sex roles long enough, and “poverty” – or at least socioeconomic stagnation – is what you get.  Subsidize poverty, and you get more of it.  Nobody even has to be mean or unfair to you to make that happen.  That’s just how it is.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard online. She also writes for the new blog Liberty Unyielding.

Note for new commenters: Welcome! There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam. There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.


  1. Exactly: That’s just how it is.

    Your personal story prompted a remembrance that may leaven your excellent essay. In our case it was six kids, on a farm 50 years ago, where the annual income was lucky to net $5K. Our friends the Jones family had no land, and nine kids; their mom worked as a maid, and dad as a mechanic until he was able to buy out the garage (and still, of course, worked as a mechanic). In neither family did we think of ourselves as poor; indeed, we knew people with more, and people with less, so if we thought of it at all, we deemed ourselves “middle-class”.

    It goes without saying that neither of those families had ever had anyone go to college; in fact, only one of the four parents had graduated from high school. Yet their fifteen kids graduated from college, became professionals, became executives, founded businesses, became fathers and mothers, founded families.

    That’s just how it was.

    Somewhere in that half century (and we know all of the influences) we forgot that America is about freedom, opportunity, and mobility… and that there is no stronger launching pad than a strong family.

    The other thing we forgot is that families have no greater support than religious community. We and the Jones family went to different churches, but go we did, every week… you might say, religiously. Whatever minor differences correlated with our sectarian choices, were swamped by the common values of a shared (essentially Christian) civic religion: to love the truth; to love your neighbor as yourself.

    On those commandments hang all of the others – including the nation’s founding documents, including the framework of its constitution and the particulars of its bill of rights. On those commandments hang gratitude for what we have, rather than envy for what others have. On those commandments hang a clear understanding that marriage serves families, that families serve children, that children serve the future… and that to be moral is to serve the future.

    How easily, and how thoroughly, those understandings are lost when the underlying civic religion is undermined. Government has a role in that undermining, most notably with the Great Society, but the problem did not begin with Lyndon Johnson and will not be wholly solved by better government. But less government would be a salutary contribution.

  2. You’re right on the money with this one.

    You too dumb0x.

  3. We had our house broken into, two trucks stolen on two separate occasions, a gun put to my brothers head in an alley, a knife put to his throat and bike stolen, hand over mouth in arcade while lock was picked for quarters, houses set ablaze across the street… and this was 6 mile in Detroit in just 1983.

  4. Thanks, dumb0x, for those reminiscences. You’re quite right:

    “On those commandments hang a clear understanding that marriage serves families, that families serve children, that children serve the future… and that to be moral is to serve the future.”

    Indeed. And obsessing over the conditions of the present or the past is embarking on spiritual suicide. Politics is about 99% designed to make us give our lives to such an obsession.

    caesarbc — thank you as well. Your memories remind us that the slow destruction of Detroit began in the 1960s, with the LBJ-era “urban renewal” program.

    Do you know one of the first things it did? It crowded out an orderly, but architecturally old, clump of working-class black neighborhoods near downtown, in favor of a massive “redevelopment” scheme that immediately — literally, from day 1 — became a nexus of graft and corruption.

    Crime had been rising there, not due to the character of the residents but due to their proximity to the bad parts of town. The residents didn’t want to be “redeveloped” into project high-rises and combined work-live-shop industrial zones, obsessively “desegregated.” They wanted better police protection.

    They got the redevelopment instead. So they moved away, to parts of town where their property interest was still respected by government, and their children would be safe. Meanwhile, welfare policies worked steadily to create the RIGHT clientele for “redeveloped” areas in which people don’t have expectations about respect and safety.

    Unfortunately, Detroit, Michigan, and the federal government continued to pursue failed policies and throw good money after bad for the next 50 years. They had been doing it for more than 15 years by 1983.

  5. JE,

    We’ve known each other for a long time… similar backgrounds, different services… but yeah, we never felt particularly poor, though the extra $100 a month for dangerous duty pay for my father’s stint with the Air Force in 1970/71 DaNang was eaten up by the fact that my folks wrote a check every month to pay for my grandparents’ social security payments.

    They ran their own restaurant business (Diner sort of thing called a Luncheonette) from 1927 until 1975. Grandpa had an 8th grade education, of which the last two years were “business school”, and Grandma graduated from 6th grade and went to work for her family helping to raise her 8 siblings.

    We, except for at three month stint in Hampton city, and those two tours in Vietnam where we went back to my grandparents in Kingston, lived in whatever officer’s quarters that my father’s grade and family condition permitted. The tiny little place at Fort Monroe was barely a three bedroom apartment, but it had a heck of a view – right on Chesapeake Bay.

    We never went for the want of anything. Even if we only went to the Officer’s Club for Sunday Brunch as a special treat. Sears was the high class store, mostly we shopped at the PX or BX – depending on which was better stocked or closer. AAFES was our custom clothier, toy store, garden shop, and the Commissary is the only place we ever bought food, unless we needed Ricotta Cheese… (they never understood that it wasn’t the Cottage variety…)

    We really didn’t have a ton of much. But we sure went some really cool places, and did things that few kids will ever have to do.

    Oh? Those barely educated parents had all three kids graduate from high school, my aunt and mother went to college and the other went on to be a ward alderman, and a mid level executive at IBM.

    No one who’s been to Ulster County New York will tell you that it’s a big garden spot of the rich and famous.

    I guess poor is really mostly between the ears, and in the chest. We were middle class. My Dad was a Navy Chief’s kid, and my mom.. well she was a mom first… second… and third… and she was proud of that. It didn’t stop her from becoming a Vice Principal of a school and spending 32 years teaching the children of some surprisingly famous people.

    I guess what has changed is that the government is now the husband and absentee father of far too many single mothers with virtually orphaned progeny who are raised by other people for minimum wage.

    It’s a social death spiral, and there isn’t much sign of it slowing down.

    r/TMF – Never Rich… but never poor, either, no matter how little we made.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: