Category Archives: Random Blogging

It Really Sucks to be Poor

It costs a lot to be poor. Just a few examples:

A recent report released by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Postal Service reports that 68 million Americans — more than a quarter of all U.S. households – have no checking or savings accounts.

How do people get along in a society where payments are made by check, or increasingly, electronic transfer? How do the (growing numbers of) people scraping along paycheck to paycheck access short-term loans when they hit a rough spot?

Evidently, by spending a lot more than the rest of us.

According to the report, these households collectively spent about $89 billion in 2012 on interest and fees for non-bank financial services like payday loans and check cashing. That works out to an average of $2,412 per household. The average underserved household spends an astonishing 10 percent of its annual income on interest and fees — about the same amount they spend on food.

As Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote in a column commenting on the report, “The poor pay more, and that’s one of the reasons people get trapped at the bottom of the economic ladder.” Poor people disproportionately rely on the check-cashing stores, pawnshops, payday lenders, and other predatory financial services that took customers for $89 billion in interest and fees in 2012.

But poor people have to contend with more than just predatory lending; they have fewer options across the board.

A few days ago, I wrote about the connection between poverty and marriage; it appears that despite the undeniable correlation between the two, we had the cause and effect backward. Poverty prevents many poor single moms from marrying in the first place. Subsequently, I found research (from professors of psychology and and organizational management) demonstrating that poverty also makes it harder for poor couples who are married to stay that way.

The problem is not that poor people fail to appreciate the importance of marriage, nor is it that poor and wealthy Americans differ in which factors they believe are important in a good marriage. The problem is that the same trends that have exacerbated inequality since 1980 — unemployment, juggling multiple jobs and so on — have also made it increasingly difficult for less wealthy Americans to invest the time and other resources needed to sustain a strong marital bond.

Poor people divorce at a rate that is thirty percent higher than their wealthier peers, with all of the emotional and financial distress that divorce brings in its wake.

Back in 2001, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote Nickeled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting Along in America, in which she documented the difficulties faced by low wage workers–  the added costs for shelter (the poor often have to spend much more on “rent by the week” fleabags than they would pay to rent a decent apartment because they can’t afford the security deposit and first-and-last month rent payments) and food (the poor often live in “food deserts” and have to buy food that is both more expensive and less healthy).

Let’s not even get into medical and dental care. That’s a subject for an entirely separate diatribe. (Folks who can’t afford regular, preventive care end up very sick in the ER, costing everyone more money.)

If we really expect poor people to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” maybe we should help them afford the bootstraps.

 

Comments

But Think About the Children!

There are few things more important to Indiana policymakers and lobbyists than the welfare of our children. Just ask them–or ask Eric Miller, who routinely appears at the legislature to insist that we have to disadvantage gay people “for the children.” Miller has worked diligently to “protect” Hoosier children from the dangers posed by GLBT folks, no matter how fanciful or invented those dangers might be.

For some reason, Miller is far less concerned about the documented, decidedly real-life threat posed by unlicensed church daycare operations. As the Indianapolis Star reported in January

Child advocates have been pushing for decades for tighter scrutiny of unlicensed Indiana day cares but have often watched the legislature take little action, even as the grim tally of child injuries and deaths has grown..An investigation last year by The Indianapolis Star found that at least 22 children have died in Indiana day cares since 2009, with 16 of those deaths in unlicensed day cares.

As the Star noted, bills to tighten licensing requirements have died in prior sessions, killed by objections that the regulations would “infringe on the religious freedom of the churches that run day-care ministries.”

Eric Miller of the conservative advocacy group Advance America has been among the loudest voices of that position.

So let me see if I have this right. Miller says Indiana needs new laws discriminating against gay citizens because children will be traumatized if they have two mommies or see gay neighbors being treated like everyone else. But Indiana absolutely doesn’t need new laws to prevent children from being neglected or abused in unsupervised facilities affiliated with a church. Because making a church follow the same rules that apply to other daycare operators will infringe their religious freedom.

Let’s call that what it is: utter bullshit.

On that logic, church school bus drivers should be exempted from traffic laws. Religious structures shouldn’t have to be built in conformity with building and fire codes.

Eric Miller and his cohorts don’t give a rat’s patootie about the welfare or safety of Hoosier children. They care only about pursuing–and in Miller’s case, profiting from–their Christianist agenda.

The biggest danger to children comes from a legislature cowed by these pious charlatans.

Comments

Gotta Love Texas

Facebook friends and even the Indianapolis Star have been having a lot of fun with Mike Delph’s unhinged tweets in the wake of the Senate vote on HJR 3. Delph–who can make even other Indiana legislators look relatively balanced in comparison–tweeted a long string of increasingly incoherent rants about the Godless Hoosiers who rejected Christianity by refusing to outlaw sin and civil unions. Or something.

If you thought that no one could top Delph’s little display of faux religiosity topped with a soupçon of constitutional ignorance, however, you were wrong. Once again, Texas wins the “you’ve GOT to be kidding” sweepstakes.

Watch this and weep!

Theocracy, anyone??

Comments

Ouch!

The most recent Bluegrass Poll has found that Mitch McConnell is slightly less popular than President Obama among Kentuckians. (To put that in perspective, in 2012, Obama lost Kentucky by nearly 23 points. This may look dismal, but it’s not so bad when you consider that Congress overall polls as less popular than either cockroaches or colonoscopies…)

It’s been a long time since a Senate leader lost a re-election bid, but independent polls have challenger Alison Lundgren Grimes leading McConnell by 4 points. There’s a lot of time until November, and McConnell will have a lot of money, but his predicament–and his vulnerability–illustrate an increasingly common dilemma for GOP candidates.

Republican candidates have moved so far to the right in order to avoid or defeat Tea Party challengers that they have compromised their appeal even to the less extreme members of their own party. One problem is that, in the age of the Internet, it is no longer possible for either Republicans or Democrats to pander on the “down low” to their respective party bases in order to win the primary and then do a quick pivot to the center for the general election. Every email, every Facebook post and tweet, is forever available to opposition researchers and casual “googlers” alike.

Furthermore, as important as money continues to be, thanks to the Internet, communicating your opponent’s voting history, indiscreet tweets and other political miscalculations is far less expensive than it used to be.

This is a dangerous time for all incumbents. Disgust with Washington is palpable. How citizens’ anger and fatigue will play out across the political landscape is anyone’s guess. Democrats, especially, need to remember the time-honored rule: you can’t beat somebody with nobody–defeating even unpopular incumbents requires a strong candidate. (Speaking of which, Democrats in Indianapolis need a strong mayoral candidate yesterday.)

In Kentucky, Ms. Grimes appears to be that strong candidate. And the “turtle man,” as Jon Stewart refers to McConnell, is definitely unpopular and struggling.

It remains to be seen whether 2014 will be the year that citizens decide they’re mad as hell and not going to take it anymore–but in Kentucky, at least, prospects for change are looking up.

Comments

Cause and Effect

One of the first rules of academic research is: don’t confuse correlation with causation. In other words, just because two things are related doesn’t mean that one of them caused the other.

Of course, sometimes there is correlation and causation; one thing did cause the other. In those cases, the trick is figuring out which is cause and which is effect.

In Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, economics reporter Annie Lowery took a closer look at the conventional wisdom that marriage “lifts children and families out of poverty.” As she notes, no one disputes the fact that “where marriage is, poverty tends not to be.” There is a definite correlation between marriage and a whole host of positive outcomes for children and families.

That, however, doesn’t tell us that marriage cures poverty. Indeed, recent research suggests we’ve gotten the equation backwards. Living in poverty is a barrier to getting and staying married.  W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, puts the issue rather starkly: “Unless we improve the fortunes of poor working people, particularly poor working men, we aren’t going to see marriage coming back.”

The research strongly suggests that the biggest problem facing impoverished people isn’t the fact that they’re single. It’s–wait for it–not enough money. And until that problem is addressed, all the millions of dollars spent on programs offering “relationship counseling” and marriage promotion might just as well be flushed down the commode.

Maybe the millions of dollars going to the various providers of “faith-based” marital advice and middle-class “values” counseling might better be spent on ameliorating poverty. Love is grand, but food comes first.

Comments