While the official U.S. unemployment rate is hovering around ten percent, the crisis is not hitting all parts of the income spectrum equally. The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University reports that the unemployment rate in the lowest income braket is ten times that of the rate in the highest. For those making $12,499 or less, the unemployment rate is 30.8 percent, compared to 3.2 percent for those who make $150,000 or more. As Bob Herbert put it, “those in the lower-income groups are in a much, much deeper hole than the general commentary on the recession would lead people to believe.”
When Congress overhauled welfare in 1996, it created the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program that placed time limits on aid and made cash assistance contingent on finding a job. Connecticut has the shortest time limit in the country—21 months—and nationwide the number of families on TANF dropped from 4.8 million before welfare reform to about 1.7 million families in 2008. Most people who left the rolls were pushed into insecure and low-wage work. There was no national debate about what would happen to those families in the case of an economic crisis.
In Hartford, Connecticut, half of those receiving food stamps are Latin@s and a third are black. A reporter for ColorLines spent several months with one Puerto Rican woman and her family, following her as she looked for a job and took care of her children and sick mother. Eva can’t find work but doesn’t qualify for government cash assistance. Without the help of welfare, she doesn’t have enough money at the end of each month to feed her daughters full meals. With no other source of income, Eva sells her food stamps to pay for basic necessities. And she is not the only one.
The impact of welfare reform has disproportionately affected women of color like Eva. Latinas, Asian woman and black women are two times more likely than whites to have been pushed off cash assistance as a result of time limits, according to a ColorLines analysis of 2008 data from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Women-led families make up 90 percent of closed TANF cases, so women of color like Eva are now more likely to be living without access to any cash assistance.
The piece is a heartbreaking look at life in the economic recession without work or income assistance. Please read the whole thing.
This should be required reading. So unjust and heartbreaking.
God, that article made me SAD.
I have to admit, I simply can’t bear to click on the link, your summary was depressing enough…
That article was SO hard to read. But thank you for posting it – it should be required for lawmakers
Thank you for posting this and linking to that article. It made me realize how some well-intentioned actions can still come up short, such as initiatives to bring full supermarkets into “food deserts,” so residents have easier access to fresh foods at lower cost than corner stores. That sounds great, and until I read this article, I didn’t see a downside. But of course chain grocery stores won’t do the wink-and-nod transactions Eva depends on to survive. Obviously the grocery stores should still be encouraged, but they are just a small part of the solution to the overarching problem of high unemployment rates and crushing poverty.
Oh, and this inspires me to gather up the tampons I don’t use anymore (y’all inspired me to go Diva!) and take them to a food bank or women’s shelter. I hope they’d take an already-opened box. That shit gets expensive, and I’d guess that one box costs the equivalent of several meals for a family like Eva’s.
This is so, so heartbreaking. And this:
“Eva knew people, and she got a job at a movie theater. What she really wanted though—then and now—was her GED. But welfare-to-work programs have ignored the need for access to education. When Congress reauthorized the cash assistance program in 2005, for example, four-year college education was deemed outside of the realm of appropriate and sanctioned job training.”
The article goes on to say that when Eva was booted from welfare for exhausting her time limit, she had that job at the movie theater–which means 1) that the job paid so little that she was still eligible for assistance and 2) that the callous “get a job” we hear so often from people against public assistance is absurd.
And, combining this with the fact that the ‘job training’ program coupled with the welfare assistance did practically nothing to assist Eva (and millions like her) in getting a better job…basically means that we’re telling people that we’ll make a show of “helping” them for a couple of years and then we just don’t give a shit anymore.
According to Carmen Cordero, who accompanied Eva to the appointment, the caseworker told Eva: “Everybody’s moms die eventually” and “having your mom sick with those problems is not a reason for an extension.” Very few people are granted more than two extensions, and Eva has now given up trying.
I just don’t even know what to write. The system of health care, sick leave, and all the rest is horrible in general. But Christ does this put everything into stark perspective. Who the eff thinks it’s appropriate to comment on tragedy by saying “everybody’s moms die enevntually”? The callousness is staggering.
When the welfare reform package went through in 1996, I was at a summer program at Wellesley and 15 years old. We had an hour-long discussion about what this meant, but the terms were so abstract. I wish articles like this had been easy for me to source back then.
I always feel that so unoriginal in saying – thank you for posting this! You mentioned this yesterday in another thread and I literally cried while reading it. So many people are unaware of the unfortunate consequences our welfare system creates. This article touched on such a deep wound of anger and resentment that I have with our system going back to my childhood and the disadvantages and unnecessary struggles my family endured because of our lack of economic security. I’m fortunate that I’ve gotten out, but in this economy, I don’t nearly feel far enough away. I fear for my family and friends and this is just another reminder of the endless hoops, judgments and general feeling of constantly remaining underwater, no matter how hard you try to climb out. It’s a vicious cycle that’s seems almost designed to punish the poverty stricken and their offspring, rather than help them.
This makes my stomach turn. It makes me look around at all the stores I go to were everyone shops for stuff we really don’t need but want and makes me wonder. It makes me feel something inside myself knowing I have groups of friends (myself included) that go out to a nice dinner every week or spend six bucks on a pack of cigarettes every two or three days.
I don’t know what the feeling is but it isn’t good. Maybe that’s a sign for some personal change?
Sarah MC, thanks for posting this. This is going up on my FB right away, and is going to be my response to all those callous “Get a job” people that philosophyerin mentions in her comment.
@Beckysharper: SAD and also MAD. Or even MAAAAAD, for extra emphasis.
This article reminded me of an ethical situation I’ve been thinking about.
My friends and I all graduated college last June, and two months ago, one of my friends moved about 1,000 miles away to a large city she’s been wanting to live in for a while. She got a white-collar job, which she quit after a couple weeks because it was “hard.” Now, she’s sporadically babysitting and just last week told me she signed up for food stamps.
This girl has upper middle class parents, comes from a wealthy town in the bay area, and has a good degree from a good university. She also has parents who would love for her to move into her childhood bedroom until she figures out her life, and feed her, clothe her, and give her anything she needs.
It just makes me uncomfortable that she is using a safety-net service when she has so many other options that most people in this country do not have. It almost seems like she is taking these stamps away from someone like Eva, who needs them far more. Like she is trivializing the importance of this service? I’m not sure what to think about it I guess. Am I being oversensitive?
My thoughts on this are unorganized, so I apologize if I say anything offensive.
Btw: this article made me so sad and I forwarded it to all my friends, many of whom are swimming in class privilege. I hope this gives them something to think about.
@Eskimo: I understand what you mean, and why you’re worried. Last year, a friend of mine had a baby. Although she is was not (at the time) married to the baby’s father, the two had been together in a stable partnership for several years before conceiving. In other words, the baby was born into a two-income household. His income is significantly higher than hers. But she fudged some papers, by her own admission, to apply for and receive WIC. I don’t know all the details of what, exactly, she fudged. But I do know that she didn’t report her partner’s income – an income that was going directly to supporting the child. She is the daughter of upper-class (divorced) parents who separately gift her with a good amount of money each year; her mom and stepfather had recently purchased a brand new car for her, and her father and stepmother bought most of the baby’s food and clothing during her first year.
Even though I knew it wasn’t my place to say she COULDN’T have WIC, I also felt vaguely icky about the situation for some of the same reasons you mention. This is not a baby who would have gone without proper nutrition if her mother hadn’t had WIC. The kicker for me, though, is that she and her family are far-right conservatives who decry social programs and government assistance for women like the ones in the ColorLine article. Sort of like when my grandparents complain about govt funded healthcare while ignoring their own status as Medicare recipients.
Yet still, I’ve always felt funny saying something about it – because I feel like I’m finger-pointing, or like I’m suggesting that I’M the one who gets to decide which women “deserve” govt assistance. And I know that’s a dangerous road to head down. *Sigh*
@Shiny Objects wink-and-nod transactions Eva depends on to survive
It’s great tangle. Those small bodegas create a black market in food stamps. How much of what they do is exploitive, on a very small scale?
My folks owned a bodega. Eva was their customer. They did not do these deals, ever, although they did extend credit without interest.
Yet the black market in food stamps continued in the parking lot. Not everybody bought shoes with the cash, either. Many came back in for beer and cigarettes, my family’s main source of income.
The result was that my parents became very bitter towards their customers. They are subject to confirmation bias, just like anybody else is. They have evolved into very hard social positions.
Sorry that this long post just boils down to *sigh* and *I dunno what to do*.
Arg, EskimoPie, that is really frustrating. I would also like to read what other folks have to say about it. Sounds like a question for The Ethicist.
Exactly, Queen_George, I feel like, who am I to decide who gets to use social programs? But at the same time, your friend and my friend’s cases just seem almost like an abuse of the system in a way that further marginalizes people who actually do need these social programs. Like, the more people who use them who don’t need them, the more society may think these programs aren’t necessary. But that seems like putting the blame in the wrong place, on women again while giving a people who overgeneralize and stereotype a pass. If that makes any sense…
Good idea SarahMC! I should write to him. I’m sure he could organize my thoughts better than I could.