|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Census data show impact of Wall Street boom
Working poor on the increase in New York City
By Fred Mazelis
25 April 2000
Use
this version to print
A new report by the non-profit Community Service Society of
New York reveals an increase in poverty among families with children
during the record boom years of the late 1990s.
The report is based on a comparison of official census data
for 1998, 1997 and 1996, the last three years for which poverty
data are available, with figures from 1989, 1988 and 1987, during
a comparable boom period, before the recession in the early part
of the last decade.
The figures show that poverty has increased at a time of skyrocketing
wealth for the top 10 percent of the population, but they also
demonstrate that more education and lower unemployment have not
meant more opportunity. The subtitle of the reportMore
Work, More School,...More Poverty? The Changing Face of Poor Families
in New York Citysums this up.
Between the late 1980s and the late 1990s the city's poverty
rate for families with children rose from 29.3 percent to 32.3
percent. The poverty rate for the city population as a whole hovers
close to 25 percent, but children are, as has historically been
the case, disproportionately affected.
Poverty rates have been increasing for the families that have
in the past been least likely to fall below the poverty line.
These include those in which at least one member is working, as
well as families headed by persons with at least some college
education. As the report states, there has been a dramatic
transformation in the conditions of the city's poor families.
In addition to an old' poormade up of families who
are outside the economic and social mainstreamwe find an
emerging new' poormade up of families who are impoverished
despite their participation in the mainstream.
Over the past decade the ratio of all New York City families
headed by someone with less than a high school education has fallen
from 32.7 to 29.5 percent. During this same period the number
of families whose household head had at least some college has
increased substantially, from 16.4 to 22.8 percent, and the proportion
of families headed by someone with a bachelor's degree or more
has jumped from 16.8 to 19.3 percent.
Meanwhile, however, the poverty rate for families headed by
persons with some post-secondary education rose by 10.6 percentage
points, and the rate for families headed by someone with a bachelors
degree or more jumped by 4.0 points. Poverty rates during this
period also rose by 8.2 percent for families that included at
least one worker, while actually falling 6.9 percent for families
with no worker present. Poverty rose by 6.7 percent for two-parent
households while declining 5.1 percent for female-headed families.
While the majority of poor families are still ones in which
there is no worker (52.7 percent), and are headed by someone with
less than a high school degree (52.4 percent) or by a single mother
(70.7 percent), these majorities have fallen drastically in the
past decade. The proportion of poor families headed by someone
with at least some college has nearly doubled, from about 12 percent
to 23 percent. Poor families including at least one worker have
soared from 28.9 to 47.3 percent of the total during this period.
The old stereotype of the welfare poor, consisting simply of
single women who have never held a job, along with their large
families, is largely demolished by these figures. The latest CSS
report documents what many critics of the Clinton administration's
welfare reform legislation of 1996 pointed out at
the time: in the absence of decent-paying jobs the demagogic slogan
of eliminating welfare as we know it would simply
pit those on welfare, the increasing immigrant population and
millions of other workers into a deadly competition for low-wage
jobs. Indeed, as the World Socialist Web Site has explained
on numerous occasions, that was a major aim of this legislation.
Reform has cast much of the former welfare poor and the
working poor in the same boat, the CSS report states. They
are now fellow competitors in the low-wage labor market.
Youth and older workers have been told that education is the
key to success in the current job market, but the frenzied competition
for the relatively few higher-paying jobs completely undercuts
that claim. It is also significant that the increasing poverty
for families headed by college-educated people has been accompanied
by steady cutbacks in funding for higher education. Enrollment
at the 20 campuses of the City University has fallen in the last
two years by about 7 percent, to 186,000. Twenty-first century
capitalism may require certain specific skills, but this does
not at all mean that higher education guarantees a rewarding and
good-paying job.
The report also indicates that the claim that increasing poverty
in New York is simply a reflection of the growing immigrant population
is not correct. Immigrant and non-immigrant sections of the working
class are equally affected by the disappearance of many good-paying
jobs and their replacement by low-wage employment in restaurants,
hotels, shops, sweatshops and as personal servants for the wealthy.
When considering these statistics, based on official census
data, it is always necessary to keep in mind that the official
poverty thresholds are, to put it mildly, somewhat unrealistic:
$13,133 annual income for a family of three, $16,665 for a family
of four. If a more realistic figure of at least $20,000 were used
(under conditions where rent for even roach-infested and crowded
apartments usually amounts to 40 percent or more of this latter
income figure), the share of families with children living in
poverty in New York today would approach 50 percent.
The official figure of nearly one-third of families with children
living in poverty is staggering enough, when compared to the explosion
of millionaires, soaring real estate prices and the proliferation
of expensive restaurants and other forms of entertainment completely
beyond the reach of the vast majority.
There are two additional factors, however, that must be considered
in connection with the increase in poverty during the current
boom. First and most obviously, if this is the situation at a
time when unemployment has fallen to its lowest levels in almost
30 years, the inevitable bursting of the Wall Street bubble and
the rapid growth of unemployment will have devastating consequences
for the entire working class, and especially for those who are
already under the poverty line.
There is also the December 2001 deadline, when welfare benefits
will begin to expire under the five-year lifetime limit on public
assistance enacted under the 1996 federal law. Hundreds of thousands
of people in New York City alone will begin to be affected by
this in the next several years.
Mark Levitan, the author of the CSS report, told the WSWS
that the increasingly volatile nature of the economy as well as
the five-year lifetime welfare limit are storm clouds out
there. He added that Article 27 of the New York State Constitution
would also complicate social and public policy in the near future.
Article 27 obligates the state government to care for
the poor. Levitan said. It is a New Deal measure,
which has served as a hook for changing social policy via lawsuit.
The obligation for New York City to provide shelter for the homeless,
for instance, stems from a successful lawsuit brought by legal
advocates for the poor.
The federal welfare program now goes under the name of Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families. In New York this is entitled Family
Assistance, and the block grant system from the federal government
pays one half its cost. With the state constitution currently
obligating care for the poor, the New York legislature and the
administration of Governor George Pataki enacted a law in 1997
that established the Safety Net Assistance program, a fully state-funded
program superseding Home Relief. It is this program that many
thousands of families will have to turn to after they have exhausted
their welfare benefits, beginning in December of next year. Even
with the much-publicized cuts in the welfare rolls, hundreds of
thousands remain, and they will undoubtedly be joined by others
when the next recession strikes.
These people will move from a 50 percent federal-funded
program to one that is 100 percent state- and local-funded,
said Levitan. There will be a huge liability, a huge cost
which the state and city will have to honor. The current budget
surpluses will turn into huge deficits. The days of New
York's brush with bankruptcy in the 1970s, which many if not most
current New Yorkers do not personally remember, can very rapidly
return under these circumstances.
For the full text of the Community Service Society report,
go to:
http://www.cssny.org/reports/databrief/databrief4_7_00.htm
See Also:
New York welfare offices recruit potential
strikebreakers
[11 April 2000]
New York denies asthma treatment
to homeless children
Federal class action lawsuit filed
[23 March 2000]
Mayor Giuliani's budget targets
New York City teachers, public employees
[7 February 2000]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |