From the library: $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America, by Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer

Last updated on: April 22, 2016 at 10:24 am by Jane the Actuary

From the library: $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America, by Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer 2016-04-22T10:24:28-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This book is not a polemic. It largely busies itself with simply explaining the lives of those in deep, deep poverty, both in general and by means of a small number of case studies, with some context to begin with and prescriptions at the end. The book doesn’t assign villians, or launch into partisan rants, and it doesn’t portray the people it follows as either paragons of virtue or deserving of their fate. And the name of the first co-author seemed familiar, and, turns out, she co-authored another book I read a while back, Promises I Can Keep, Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, which I summarized in an early blog post.

Is the book perfect? No, of course not. Through the negative reviews on Amazon, among other comments, point out that the authors take the stories their subjects relate as entirely truthful, when it’s just as likely that the woman with no teeth came to that fate not by lacking dental care but by drug abuse (and drugs are wholly absent from the case studies), and the women fired for $10 missing in the cash register might will have been stealing, rather than being terminated out of the blue. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start with description before getting into opinions.

The fundamental data point of the book is this: based on analysis of the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), an estimated 1.5 million households with 3 million children had cash income of no more than $2 per person, per day, in any given month. Maybe this figure is inaccurate, and overstated due to individuals working under the table and not reporting the income to the survey-taker, but, regardless, what is noteworthy, and cause for concern, is that this figure “more than doubled” (though this isn’t quantified) since welfare reform was implemented in 1996.

To some degree, this shouldn’t be a surprise, what with TANF’s limits on lifetime benefits. And Edin & Schaeffer don’t simply rage against the reform: they acknowledge that it directed significant benefits to the working poor, especially those with children, via the Earned Income Tax Credit, and that has improved the wellbeing of a great many families, and, indeed, there was a major shift off the welfare rolls and a significant reduction in child poverty on an overall basis (p. 30). What’s more, welfare reform has produced a cultural shift among the poor:

[W]elfare reform coincided with a fundamental shift in the way low-income single mothers thought about parenting. In the years prior to welfare reform, in-depth conversations with hundreds of single mothers on welfare illuminated their belief that taking a full-time job would greatly detract from their ability to be a good parent, especially if they had young children. Then came the roaring 1990s, when an unprecedented number of these single mothers found themselves going to work, “pushed” by the changes in the welfare rules and “pulled” by the EITC expansions, minimum-wage increase, and unprecendented strength of the economy.

Years after welfare reform, when researches engaged in a further series of in-depth conversations with former welfare recipients, the typical single mom talked about work in a very different way from those interviewed just a few years before. Now she was telling researchers that to be a good parent, she had to model the value of education by getting a job (p. 32).

This is clearly striking. Yet, the authors report, for those who can’t get a job, times are tougher than ever. Even for TANF, the conventional wisdom among the poor has become “don’t bother applying; the lines are too long and you’ll just get rejected in the end” — and they further quote poor women who are convinced it doesn’t even exist any longer at all.

And the long-term unemployed have additional strikes against them: convincing an employer to hire a homeless shelter resident, or someone dependent on mass transit, or someone without a proper work wardrobe or a means of showering daily and keeping clothes clean, or a toothless applicant, is all the more difficult, especially in a weak market when that employer has other choices.

How, then, do they survive? They write of various efforts to acquire cash: one woman they profile donates plasma as many times as the donation center will allow. They collect recyclables (though they’re limited by their ability to store and transport them). Another operated a small store selling snacks in her tiny Delta town, using food stamps to buy inventory at the grocery store in a town further away, then selling it in her living room, marked up. They sell food stamps; the authors say that the USDA’s recent audit determined that food stamp fraud occurs at a level of 1.3% of overall benefits, but among the cashless poor, this seems more routine. (In one case the authors cite, a mother-of-13 in the Deep South, she sells so much of the food stamp benefit that the kids are seriously undernourished.) They sell access to the kids’ Social Security numbers for others to use to claim the EITC, splitting the proceeds. And the women sell their bodies, not necessarily in the form of prostitution per se, though this happens as well, but in the form of a “friend” with whom there’s an understanding that they have sex and he covers some of her expenses. In other cases, households fall below $2 per day because a member of the household collects Social Security disability benefits, but that case must stretch for larger numbers of dependents; in the family they profiled, a man supported his wife and several grown children and their children, 22 in all, in a three-bedroom house, on his Social Security disability benefits.

These individuals also learn the ins and outs of every charitable benefit: the soup kitchens or food giveaways, the backpacks when school starts, the winter coats, the free clinics, and so on.

And, as far as housing is concerned, they double-up, they triple-up, they bounce from one shelter to another, they stay with any relatives who’ll take them.

The people she profiles, though lacking jobs now, have worked in the past — several who were cashiers, another cleaning foreclosed houses, another as part of a hotel housekeeping staff, and other such unskilled work. One (the disabled grandfather) even owned several pizza restaurants, but lost everything. And they continue to look for work, pounding the pavement without success. Why did they lose their jobs? In one case, a transportation failure. In another, an accusation of theft from the register. The housecleaner quit because the fumes and chemicals from these houses were making her sick. In others, it’s simply blamed on the economy — but there’s also an acknowledgement (though excused by poverty) that these people are not entirely mentally stable, and prone to making bad decisions.

What do the authors prescribe as solutions?

Job creation: both in government subsidies to private employers and large-scale expansion of government jobs.
Supports for workers, such as emergency transportation or child care and advocacy in helping workers keep their jobs.
Boosts in the minimum wage.
Pursuit of wage-theft violators.
Require employers to schedule work with enough advance notice that workers can plan, and can succeed in holding onto their jobs.
Revive cash assistance for those without work.

So that’s my summary. Commentary coming next.

Image: By Raysonho @ Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Uncategorized

poverty

welfare

Previous Post

April 21, 2016

Another what-if on locker rooms

Next Post

April 22, 2016 What to do about the very poor? (a follow-up to $2 a Day)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Christian group is known for door-to-door evangelism and "Watchtower" magazine?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Jehovah's Witnesses Methodists Mennonites Lutherans