People don’t want to hear it
Even prior to the pandemic, the United States lagged other developed nations in child poverty levels. More than one out of every five American children lives in poverty, according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data. As the pandemic continues to exacerbate the underlying crisis of American poverty, 45 percent of all children now live in households that have recently struggled with routine expenses, according to a report out this month from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, or CBPP. Black and Latino households have been especially impacted by the economic starvation that the mishandling of this pandemic has wrought, and these populations were already disproportionately likely to grow up poor.
But we want it this way. It means people are forced to do whatever shit work we want done, for shit pay and no benefits. We get cheap chicken and they get evictions and hunger.
“We don’t want to be responsible for them. A very wise historian, Michael Katz, wrote that ‘poverty is the third rail of American politics.’ We don’t like to talk about poverty in America, and we don’t like to deal with it,” Jeff Madrick, a veteran journalist and author of Invisible Americans: The Tragic Cost of Childhood Poverty, told me.
“And I’m including the Democrats here,” Katz continued. “Democrats hardly ever talked about child poverty until recently. And I include Hillary Clinton, in that she didn’t mention child poverty very much in her 2016 electoral campaign. The reason is not merely that they are insensitive, but they think it’s bad for electoral politics, because people don’t want to hear about it.”
And because they think it means “socialism” and they think socialism will electrocute you from 100 miles away.
That’s also why the Democrats always talk about “the middle class” and never ever the working class or the poor. It’s as if the words are vile obscenities.
The solutions to child poverty are not mysterious. Socialists, liberals, and leftists have long advocated for more generous benefits to families that would alleviate some of the financial burden many parents currently shoulder alone. Last year, Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project released “The Family Fun Pack,” a comprehensive family welfare plan that would dramatically supplement the immense costs of raising a family in the United States: material supplies and paid parental leave are paired with free pre-K, childcare, health care, and a $300 monthly allowance. “The easiest solution to the problems posed by family life under capitalism is to levy broad-based taxes and then use the revenues from those taxes to fund a set of benefits that provide resources to families with children,” Bruenig wrote.
Even more moderate Democrats have backed proposals that could radically reduce child poverty. On the campaign trail, Joe Biden endorsed expanding Section 8 housing vouchers to cover all families who qualify, which would effectively cut child poverty by a third. Kamala Harris’s LIFT the Middle Class Act would replace the Trump-era tax cuts with large tax credits to low- and middle-income households who work.
See? That’s what I mean. Why is the act called that? Why lift the middle class? What about the people below the middle? Surely the people in the middle don’t need lifting nearly as much as the people on the fucking bottom.
Poverty is not some abstraction or a phenomen[on] only relevant during the holidays but rather a material consequence of deliberate policy choices. It would be possible for the government to make a serious effort to alleviate childhood poverty, but it’s a task far too big for Santa.
Yes but socialism.
It doesn’t help that we have this damn rugged individualist mindset here. Too many people think poverty is the fault of the poor. If they worked harder, if they saved more, if they stopped wasting money. Yeah, right. When I lived in poverty, I didn’t have any money to waste. I almost lost my residence because I lost what small amount of income I had. I was fortunate; I found a job in the nick of time and was able to pull us up, but it took a long time. I have no doubt it left scars on my child; my life as a child in poverty certainly left scars on me. And I am pretty sure that I would probably have been able to achieve more if we had the opportunities the middle class have. And the weird thing is, I was probably classed as middle class when I was so poor I couldn’t pay bills, simply because of my education. Yeah. You know what a bachelor’s degree in political science gets you for a job? Not much. When I was forced out of the job I had, there wasn’t much else out there. I have to admit, I definitely considered sex work as a possibility. The only thing is, I had no idea how one went about getting into that…
If it hadn’t been for food stamps, we probably wouldn’t have survived. If I hadn’t been anorexic, the food stamps may not have been enough.
The solutions are NOT mysterious. Nor do they need a larger bureaucracy. A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is what it takes.
The current minimum wage in Oz is $19.84 (US$15.11) and on top of that, there are 10 days sick leave, 28 days annual leave, 11 public holidays, 9% portable employer-paid superannuation, and Universal Healthcare.
Sure, and that’s how the Australian economy collapsed and they’ve suffered terrible economic numbers…
(checks data)
… ah. I see. Well, nevertheless.
Screechy, you’d be right if your only source of “news” was Lord Molloch’s Media Empire, or the Reich Wing “think tanks”, but here on the ground, in the real world …
It’s not just rugged individualism that’s the issue. It’s not just that weird brand of Christianity that assumes poor people are lazy and get what they deserve. A large chunk of the world despises poor people. They’re perceived as dirty, diseased, ignorant, uncouth and unkempt layabouts and criminals. Of course to an extent that’s true. To the extent that is, that those are known outcomes of how our societies function. We’d collectively rather that 30% of us lived miserable lives and another 30% lived economically precarious lives so that we could all dream of being in the top 2%, than have all of us comfortable and safe, but not actually wildly rich.
Ours is a little less than that: the current gross rate of “SMIC” is 10.15€ (12.39USD) but it will go up by a small amount next week. However, exact comparison with Australia would require knowledge of medical coverage and other benefits in the two countries. You can’t live comfortably on that, but you can manage.
And “socialism” means Soviet-style tyranny and gulags. Never mind that the Soviet Union was never even meant to be a classless society. It was always meant to be a permanent dictatorship with the Party elite as a permanent new upper class. Still the atrocities of the Soviet regime has for ever discredited an ideal it didn’t even hold.
OB:
It’s simply the reverse of trickle-down economics. If those in middle get lifted, those on the bottom get lifted too, by a kind of suction force. So we have both trickle-down-to-’em and suck-’em-upwards operating simultaneously.
I’d say it’s a win-win-win situation.
The government sets a notional fee a GP should charge and will pay 85% of that fee to the GP. If the GP is happy with the 85% (mine is), the patient pays nothing. GPs are also free to charger above the notional fee. Any difference between the fee charged and the 85% is paid by the patient, but its not hard to find the GPs that don’t charge above the 85%. There are some things the patient must pay for. Last year I had a skin cancer on my leg. There was no charge for the biopsy or lab work, but I did have to pay for the surgery to remove it, around $40 IIRC. No charge for follow up visits, removal of stitches, etc.
Public hospital care is provided at no cost to the patient.
When a “socialist” government attempted to create this system the main objectors were GPs. We have had it now since 1984 (the year of socialism). When a “capitalist” government has tried to make changes, the strongest defenders are now the GPs. They have seen it work for their patients, they have seen they practice medicine how they think best for their patients. And they don’t have to waste money chasing up small debts.
I am not tied to a GP, I can change at will. I have a card in my wallet that is used to identify my entitlement and ensure that whatever GP I see is paid. Certainly a bonus if falling ill while traveling.
Medicare, as it is known, is funded by a 2% charge on taxable income. So yes, we pay for it, but the premium if you like to call it the, is on an means tested basis. Untaxed people, eg unemployed, aged pensioners, stay at home mums/dads, are still granted full cover.
Is it perfect? No, I can think of many ways to improve it, like adding coverage for dental care. But for its faults, it is miles in front of anything our friends in the US must suffer under.
*GP = General Practitioner, your primary care doctor.
That’s about what I pay for a routine office visit (after insurance). Surgery? In the thousands.
MDs in general are very resistant here. They don’t want to reduce their income by one cent, and claim they are underpaid. I might be more inclined to believe this if I hadn’t read things written by physicians and realize that they believe it is impossible to live on $120 an hour (way more than almost all of their patients make). Doctors have fought against it every time it comes up. I think maybe if we coupled it with student loan payoff, that might help, but we would get severe resistance from any doctors that have been in the business long enough to pay off their student loans. They would feel that the younger generation was getting an unfair perk. And they would be, but so what? I know a lot of teachers that had their student loans paid; nobody told me about that program until after I paid mine off, so I paid my own. I still support the program.
Reduced income and “socialised medicine” were the initial objections when Medicare was brought in, but I guess all doctors are now socialists as they fight tooth and nail to preserve the system.
I’d hate to think about how Americans would react to New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Commission. Funded by a levy on wages, employers and fuel, all accidental injuries are treated at no cost to the patient. It is the one thing I wish Australia would have, it put a complete end to the lawyer’s picnic of injury compensation claims.
Again, from personal experience when I lived and worked in New Zealand:
I slipped on an icy road and broke my elbow.
An ambulance ride to the local medical centre, pain relief medication. I lived in a small village with no hospital.
60km (38 miles) Ambulance to hospital in Christchurch.
Surgery to repair elbow, including two hinges and multiple screws.
7 days recovery in hospital.
Multiple physiotherapy visits to regain use of arm.
For the first week off work, my employer paid 80% of my usual wage. From that time, until return to work, ACC paid 80% of my usual wage.
I wanted to return to work, my employer wanted me to return to work, but has I had minimal use of my right arm I could not drive. ACC paid for a chauffeur to take me two and from the office. Initially, I was able to work 3 x 6 hour days. This continued for 4 weeks, my wages made up to 80% of usual by the employer paying me for the 18 hours worked, ACC the additional 22.
If that’s socialism, what’s not to like?
Roj @# 9:
The original Medibank introduced by the Whitlam Government around 1972 did cover dental. But asI recall, when that political rodent John Howard (COALition) displaced that grub Keating (ALP), the first thing Howard did was get rid of dental cover. He must have had no dental problems himself.
The medicos have it both ways. In a so-called ‘free market’ environment (introduced by Hawke and Keating, they get to both control entry to the medical/dental/veterinary preofessions AND set their own fees.
They have the politicians bluffed. The politicians don’t want to get the medicos offside. And if you ask me, it stinks.
I wasn’t here when they introduced that sort of system in France, and in the UK I was too young (in the late 1940s), so I only know what I was told, but my impression is that the history was the same. Certainly, by the time I was old enough to make my own observations, in the 1950s, it was clear that the National Health Service was very popular with doctors, for the sort of reason you give. Whenever right-wing governments have tried to turn the clock back they have found that only right-wing politicians think that’s a good idea. Recent Tory governments have toyed with the idea of handing over the National Health Service to American organizations like Blue Cross, but I don’t know if that will happen.
I was born in 1943, and although there were no medical complications I was a very expensive baby (35 guineas, I think — a trivial sum today, but not in 1943), because the obstetrician had a very unrealistic idea of what my mother could afford. My daughter’s twins, born in Paris in 2015, cost nothing.
Omar @12
Whitlams Medibank (1972) was dismantled by Fraser. (1975)
Hawkes Medicare (1984) never included dental. I’d have far better teeth if it did.
My daughter went to a wedding in Santa Monica a few years ago. The day afterwards she got a grain of sand in her eye, and wasn’t able to wash it out. She went to a clinic and had it removed in 20 minutes, for which she was charged $600. If she had reported it within 24 hours to the French social security she would have been reimbursed, but she forgot to do that.
“But we want it this way.”
Yes but no media will report this reality. Without this admission stated baldly by the media, we get mealy mouthed away from the truth.