What do you think?
Rate this book
Win a free print copy of this book!
27 days and 02:26:02
20 copies available
U.S. only
Poverty, by America
Win a free print copy of this book!
27 days and 02:26:02
20 copies available
U.S. only
Goodreads Choice Award
Winner for Best Nonfiction (2023)The Pulitzer Prize–winning, bestselling author of Evicted reimagines the debate on poverty, making a new and bracing argument about why it persists in America: because the rest of us benefit from it.
ONE OF THE MOST ANTICIPATED BOOKS OF 2023: The Washington Post, Time, Esquire, Newsweek, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Elle, Salon, Lit Hub, Kirkus Reviews
The United States, the richest country on earth, has more poverty than any other advanced democracy. Why? Why does this land of plenty allow one in every eight of its children to go without basic necessities, permit scores of its citizens to live and die on the streets, and authorize its corporations to pay poverty wages?
In this landmark book, acclaimed sociologist Matthew Desmond draws on history, research, and original reporting to show how affluent Americans knowingly and unknowingly keep poor people poor. Those of us who are financially secure exploit the poor, driving down their wages while forcing them to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit. We prioritize the subsidization of our wealth over the alleviation of poverty, designing a welfare state that gives the most to those who need the least. And we stockpile opportunity in exclusive communities, creating zones of concentrated riches alongside those of concentrated despair. Some lives are made small so that others may grow.
Elegantly written and fiercely argued, this compassionate book gives us new ways of thinking about a morally urgent problem. It also helps us imagine solutions. Desmond builds a startlingly original and ambitious case for ending poverty. He calls on us all to become poverty abolitionists, engaged in a politics of collective belonging to usher in a new age of shared prosperity and, at last, true freedom.
ONE OF THE MOST ANTICIPATED BOOKS OF 2023: The Washington Post, Time, Esquire, Newsweek, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Elle, Salon, Lit Hub, Kirkus Reviews
The United States, the richest country on earth, has more poverty than any other advanced democracy. Why? Why does this land of plenty allow one in every eight of its children to go without basic necessities, permit scores of its citizens to live and die on the streets, and authorize its corporations to pay poverty wages?
In this landmark book, acclaimed sociologist Matthew Desmond draws on history, research, and original reporting to show how affluent Americans knowingly and unknowingly keep poor people poor. Those of us who are financially secure exploit the poor, driving down their wages while forcing them to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit. We prioritize the subsidization of our wealth over the alleviation of poverty, designing a welfare state that gives the most to those who need the least. And we stockpile opportunity in exclusive communities, creating zones of concentrated riches alongside those of concentrated despair. Some lives are made small so that others may grow.
Elegantly written and fiercely argued, this compassionate book gives us new ways of thinking about a morally urgent problem. It also helps us imagine solutions. Desmond builds a startlingly original and ambitious case for ending poverty. He calls on us all to become poverty abolitionists, engaged in a politics of collective belonging to usher in a new age of shared prosperity and, at last, true freedom.
284 pages, Hardcover
First published March 21, 2023
About the author
Matthew Desmond
12 books3,265 followersMatthew Desmond is social scientist and urban ethnographer. He is the Maurice P. During Professor of Sociology and the Director of the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. He is also a Contributing Writer for The New York Times Magazine.
Desmond is the author of over fifty academic studies and several books, including "Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City," which won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award, Carnegie Medal, and PEN / John Kenneth Galbraith Award for Nonfiction.
"Evicted" was listed as one of the Best Books of 2016 by The New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, National Public Radio, and several other outlets. It has been named one of the Best 50 Nonfiction Books of the Last 100 Years and was included in the 100 Best Social Policy Books of All Time.
Desmond's research and reporting focuses on American poverty and public policy. He is the recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award, and is an elected member of the American Philosophical Society. He has been listed among the Politico 50, as one of “fifty people across the country who are most influencing the national political debate.”
Desmond is the author of over fifty academic studies and several books, including "Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City," which won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award, Carnegie Medal, and PEN / John Kenneth Galbraith Award for Nonfiction.
"Evicted" was listed as one of the Best Books of 2016 by The New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, National Public Radio, and several other outlets. It has been named one of the Best 50 Nonfiction Books of the Last 100 Years and was included in the 100 Best Social Policy Books of All Time.
Desmond's research and reporting focuses on American poverty and public policy. He is the recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award, and is an elected member of the American Philosophical Society. He has been listed among the Politico 50, as one of “fifty people across the country who are most influencing the national political debate.”
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,847 reviews
March 21, 2023
This book is as searing as they come. Desmond took his clout as a Pulitzer winner and said I'm coming for your necks. This book is not EVICTED it is not narrative nonfiction, it is a fierce accounting of poverty in America an a poverty abolitionist manifesto. It digs into the tax breaks and welfare of the rich. It is very very good.
April 4, 2023
Desmond's last book, Eviction, was life changing for me. I was about to write that the book made me aware of things that revolted me about the ways we (all of us) keep the poor poor but that is a half truth. I think I knew a lot of what Desmond wrote about in that book, but by assaulting me with facts, statistical and anecdotal, Desmond forced me into a reckoning. That reckoning impacted my volunteer work, and also made me re-evaluate where and how I choose to live. Few things I have read or seen in my life have had such a profound impact. I was so excited when I saw he had a new book and I began reading it the day it hit my Kindle. Maybe this book suffered from my high expectations. It is a very different book, and though I think there is some very valuable material here, much of it kind of exasperated me. You will be disappointed if you are looking for the well-researched factually supported heft of Evicted or the several other excellent books by others that he cites here including The Warmth of Other Suns, The Sum of us, and Thick (which he does not mention by name but he credits Tressie McMillan Cottom, and I am pretty sure the material he is quoting comes from one of the essays in that excellent book.) This book is a manifesto. It is actually a pretty decent manifesto, but it is a manifesto nonetheless and I guess that is not what I came for.
The first half of this book (almost exactly to the 50% mark) just bored me. I hear what he is saying, that we talk about systemic problems but that the answer is within us, that the cure to structural problems comes from our personal choices. I get that there is a good deal of personal wealth for many and that if people were willing to part with some of that, or at least the fruits of some of that, and if rich people paid their damn taxes we could address the moral horror of true want. But that is kind of obvious and 100 pages of that being said in different ways left me unfocused and also searching for other reading material.
At about the 50% mark Desmond comes out swinging, and the book becomes 100x more compelling. Compelling and cohesive are different beasts though. The moral argument appealed to me but there were holes in his reasoning I could drive a truck through. The biggest holes came from Desmond's mistaken belief that people all share his values, especially from the belief that people care a lot about others outside their immediate community. Everything hinges on this, Desmond says basically, "yeah people with money, you will have to give up autonomy and comfort to end poverty, but when everyone is equal you will feel so much better! That sacrifice will be paid off a thousand-fold" It is a lovely sentiment, but I believe it is simply untrue of most people. In my experience people who enjoy sone degree of economic comfort do not wrestle a lot with the ethics of economic inequity. They give some money to the Title 1 school closest to them, pat themselves on the back for subscribing to a CSA and buying eggs from the farmstand instead of supporting big ag, they "simplify" with Marie Kondo, and they maybe upcycle instead of buying new things from fast fashion purveyors. And they feel largely fine after that. Desmond is advocating for them to change their entire lives to alleviate the inequities, and I am here to say that will never happen. I did mention that in my experience people only care about people in their communities (that includes virtual communities,) and Desmond addresses that by suggesting that communities should not be divided by wealth, He argues that people support subsidized housing in their neighborhoods to create more economically diverse communities. I think that is a wonderful suggestion and I support it in theory. As I type that though I am keenly aware that here in NYC where the richest among us always lived in close proximity to those in subsidized housing, housing projects are slowly being sold to private owners -- people are paying big money to live in what used to be the projects here. I used to live steps away from the Gowanus projects in Boerum Hill and they have been rezoned and sold to private developers. The Manhattanville Projects in West Harlem are being turned into luxury condos as the Williamsburg Houses recently were. In other words, the cheek-by-jowl cohabitation of NYC by rich and poor is ending -- moving away from Desmond's dream model. This makes me sad, but does not surprise me. That glow of connection and caring that Desmond thinks will happen from being part of the same communities, that did not occur here and I don't see it as being likely to happen elsewhere either. The only people I have heard speaking against the city selling these units would be the residents of the subsidized housing, nothing from their more moneyed neighbors.
One last thing I wanted to mention. I talked about how reading Eviction changed me and my choices about where and how to live, and it did, but it changed those things after my son was grown and I was the only one feeling the impact. I believe in public education, and I always thought my child would go to public school, but he had learning disabilities, and they did a terrible job of educating him in a very highly rated public elementary in the Atlanta metro. I pulled him out of public school at the start of 3rd grade and sent him to excellent private schools where he got individualized attention, and I hired tutors, organizational coaches and other professionals. He graduated with high grades, went to an excellent college where he majored in Public Policy and Media Studies, is an aspiring filmmaker, and fully supports himself in that industry. He has worked for one of the largest media companies in the world and in addition to his full-time work he has a busy freelance schedule and has even directed several music videos in the two years since graduation. His doctor said that when he saw my brilliant son's educational report when he was 7 he thought he would be lucky to go to community college. A neighbor with a slightly older child with similar issues who stayed in public school had that outcome, and he was never able to complete his AA. Would I make another decision to keep my kid in a school that was not serving him so that he would be on equal footing with kids with fewer resources? Not in a thousand years. And if I did do that and my child ended up with a life that did not allow him to share his unique skills with the world would I be happier because he shared that unsatisfying life with so many other young people? Nope. If I am going to hell, so be it, but I will have a lot of company.
Well-intentioned, peppered with interesting observations about how Americans perceive their level of wealth and with some fascinating facts about American's actual level of want, and with potentially actionable solutions to poverty this book does a lot, but ultimately for me it was a disappointment. Maybe because it made me feel defensive, I can't say, but I feel like I feel.
The first half of this book (almost exactly to the 50% mark) just bored me. I hear what he is saying, that we talk about systemic problems but that the answer is within us, that the cure to structural problems comes from our personal choices. I get that there is a good deal of personal wealth for many and that if people were willing to part with some of that, or at least the fruits of some of that, and if rich people paid their damn taxes we could address the moral horror of true want. But that is kind of obvious and 100 pages of that being said in different ways left me unfocused and also searching for other reading material.
At about the 50% mark Desmond comes out swinging, and the book becomes 100x more compelling. Compelling and cohesive are different beasts though. The moral argument appealed to me but there were holes in his reasoning I could drive a truck through. The biggest holes came from Desmond's mistaken belief that people all share his values, especially from the belief that people care a lot about others outside their immediate community. Everything hinges on this, Desmond says basically, "yeah people with money, you will have to give up autonomy and comfort to end poverty, but when everyone is equal you will feel so much better! That sacrifice will be paid off a thousand-fold" It is a lovely sentiment, but I believe it is simply untrue of most people. In my experience people who enjoy sone degree of economic comfort do not wrestle a lot with the ethics of economic inequity. They give some money to the Title 1 school closest to them, pat themselves on the back for subscribing to a CSA and buying eggs from the farmstand instead of supporting big ag, they "simplify" with Marie Kondo, and they maybe upcycle instead of buying new things from fast fashion purveyors. And they feel largely fine after that. Desmond is advocating for them to change their entire lives to alleviate the inequities, and I am here to say that will never happen. I did mention that in my experience people only care about people in their communities (that includes virtual communities,) and Desmond addresses that by suggesting that communities should not be divided by wealth, He argues that people support subsidized housing in their neighborhoods to create more economically diverse communities. I think that is a wonderful suggestion and I support it in theory. As I type that though I am keenly aware that here in NYC where the richest among us always lived in close proximity to those in subsidized housing, housing projects are slowly being sold to private owners -- people are paying big money to live in what used to be the projects here. I used to live steps away from the Gowanus projects in Boerum Hill and they have been rezoned and sold to private developers. The Manhattanville Projects in West Harlem are being turned into luxury condos as the Williamsburg Houses recently were. In other words, the cheek-by-jowl cohabitation of NYC by rich and poor is ending -- moving away from Desmond's dream model. This makes me sad, but does not surprise me. That glow of connection and caring that Desmond thinks will happen from being part of the same communities, that did not occur here and I don't see it as being likely to happen elsewhere either. The only people I have heard speaking against the city selling these units would be the residents of the subsidized housing, nothing from their more moneyed neighbors.
One last thing I wanted to mention. I talked about how reading Eviction changed me and my choices about where and how to live, and it did, but it changed those things after my son was grown and I was the only one feeling the impact. I believe in public education, and I always thought my child would go to public school, but he had learning disabilities, and they did a terrible job of educating him in a very highly rated public elementary in the Atlanta metro. I pulled him out of public school at the start of 3rd grade and sent him to excellent private schools where he got individualized attention, and I hired tutors, organizational coaches and other professionals. He graduated with high grades, went to an excellent college where he majored in Public Policy and Media Studies, is an aspiring filmmaker, and fully supports himself in that industry. He has worked for one of the largest media companies in the world and in addition to his full-time work he has a busy freelance schedule and has even directed several music videos in the two years since graduation. His doctor said that when he saw my brilliant son's educational report when he was 7 he thought he would be lucky to go to community college. A neighbor with a slightly older child with similar issues who stayed in public school had that outcome, and he was never able to complete his AA. Would I make another decision to keep my kid in a school that was not serving him so that he would be on equal footing with kids with fewer resources? Not in a thousand years. And if I did do that and my child ended up with a life that did not allow him to share his unique skills with the world would I be happier because he shared that unsatisfying life with so many other young people? Nope. If I am going to hell, so be it, but I will have a lot of company.
Well-intentioned, peppered with interesting observations about how Americans perceive their level of wealth and with some fascinating facts about American's actual level of want, and with potentially actionable solutions to poverty this book does a lot, but ultimately for me it was a disappointment. Maybe because it made me feel defensive, I can't say, but I feel like I feel.
March 28, 2023
I overall enjoyed reading this book about the issue of poverty in the United States. Matthew Desmond does a nice job of highlighting key factors that perpetuate poverty and economic disparity, including how the government gives so many benefits/subsidies to the wealthy while undermining and not doing as much as it should for the poor. I like that he makes the point that alleviating poverty would require wealthy people to give up some resources and that that sacrifice is worth it if you’re actually an empathetic person. He addresses intersections of race and poverty with an emphasis on Black Americans, and he also details how expensive poverty can get through the presence of factors such as unnecessary banking and paycheck fees.
At times I felt like the book read like a manifesto or a well-researched rant. I didn’t disagree with many of his points, however. As an Asian American person reading this, I definitely reflected on how I know certain Asian Americans who prioritize upward mobility and accumulating wealth over solidarity with low-income people of color – it’s interesting and saddening to think about how greed can motivate people.
At times I felt like the book read like a manifesto or a well-researched rant. I didn’t disagree with many of his points, however. As an Asian American person reading this, I definitely reflected on how I know certain Asian Americans who prioritize upward mobility and accumulating wealth over solidarity with low-income people of color – it’s interesting and saddening to think about how greed can motivate people.
June 15, 2023
This is more a pamphlet than a non-fiction book, an opinion piece instead of an investigative or at least well-researched text. Granted: The divide between rich and poor is exorbitant in America, the social security system is pretty much non-existent, the weak unions are a joke (all said from a Western European perspective). It's obvious, and it's shameful for such a rich industrialized nation. But if you want to change people's minds, you need concrete comparisons and well-argued perspectives regarding why changes will help the nation.
But what Desmond says is often just a distortion and misses the neuralgic points. For instance, he says that in Germany, poverty is lower although less people graduate college - he does not mention that we have a completely different educational system with different types of high schools, our B.A. is not like a B.A. in the US, plus we have a whole system for studying crafts outside of college which does not exist in the US. Desmond compares apples to oranges. He also argues that the poverty of single mothers is not a thing in many European countries, which is news to me (outside of maybe Scandinavia). He does not explain the historic roots of why unions succeed in Europe and fail in the states (red scare, Ayn Rand, McCarthy, religious beliefs etc.). And it goes on like that.
Desmond has opinions, and he is often right, but fails to deliver a good, coherent, fact-based argument that considers historic and sociological elements - but to dissect them would be the foundation for a valid case for change.
But what Desmond says is often just a distortion and misses the neuralgic points. For instance, he says that in Germany, poverty is lower although less people graduate college - he does not mention that we have a completely different educational system with different types of high schools, our B.A. is not like a B.A. in the US, plus we have a whole system for studying crafts outside of college which does not exist in the US. Desmond compares apples to oranges. He also argues that the poverty of single mothers is not a thing in many European countries, which is news to me (outside of maybe Scandinavia). He does not explain the historic roots of why unions succeed in Europe and fail in the states (red scare, Ayn Rand, McCarthy, religious beliefs etc.). And it goes on like that.
Desmond has opinions, and he is often right, but fails to deliver a good, coherent, fact-based argument that considers historic and sociological elements - but to dissect them would be the foundation for a valid case for change.
March 27, 2023
Pretty much a manifesto rather than a well argued, comprehensive work Evicted was. A lot of generalizations, solutions that are hardly nuanced, cherry picked statistics, etc.
April 13, 2023
"This is who we are: the richest country on earth, with more poverty than any other advanced democracy. If America’s poor founded a country, that country would have a bigger population than Australia or Venezuela."
'Poverty, by America' is a brief look at poverty in the US, and most importantly, what we can do about it.
I'd give it 5 stars except that it's so short. I felt cheated that, while it's 287 pages (Kindle version), only 187 are the actual book. The other 100 pages are notes, a reader's guide, etc.
'Poverty, by America' is a brief look at poverty in the US, and most importantly, what we can do about it.
I'd give it 5 stars except that it's so short. I felt cheated that, while it's 287 pages (Kindle version), only 187 are the actual book. The other 100 pages are notes, a reader's guide, etc.
March 27, 2023
The good news for Mr. Desmond is that this book will likely divide people along political lines, and progressive people will most likely all give it 5 stars and conservative people will not. And there's nothing really wrong with that, but I did find it sorely disappointing after reading the masterpiece that was Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City.
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City was a book that opened hearts and minds. I now know that I am not really in the same vicinity as Mr. Desmond when it comes to our political views, but when I read Evicted, I was moved nonetheless. It created an empathy within me that really wasn't there before, and made me more attuned to the issue in my own community. Since I participate very actively in a Giving Circle, there were real ramifications to this viewpoint shift. I thought the book was brilliant even when read with a critical eye.
This book is the exact opposite. It's an editorial where you can't help but feel as though the facts were entirely cherry picked as if to build a legal argument. There was very little nod to other schools of thought, but more importantly there wasn't any analysis of possible unintended consequences that might arise from following Desmond's suggestions for eradicating poverty. There was also no good definition of what eradicating poverty really means. Is it just getting people above a certain minimum income? I definitely got the sense that Desmond didn't see that as adequate. There will always be a bottom 15%. But the people comprising that bottom are not always the same year in and year out.
There were some ideas that I agree with (free access to excellent birth control for those below a certain income level seems like a good idea to me, and I could get on board with eliminating the mortgage interest deduction as part of a bigger plan to simply our tax system). But you lose me when you point out that during the pandemic we made the biggest dent in poverty we ever made because we handed out so much money . . .um, did you measure that in inflation adjusted income? Everything got so much more expensive; I find it hard to take that statement seriously.
At the end of the day, there was an opportunity here. I think it was missed. If you like opinion pieces that go on for the length of an entire book, you might enjoy the writing.
Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City was a book that opened hearts and minds. I now know that I am not really in the same vicinity as Mr. Desmond when it comes to our political views, but when I read Evicted, I was moved nonetheless. It created an empathy within me that really wasn't there before, and made me more attuned to the issue in my own community. Since I participate very actively in a Giving Circle, there were real ramifications to this viewpoint shift. I thought the book was brilliant even when read with a critical eye.
This book is the exact opposite. It's an editorial where you can't help but feel as though the facts were entirely cherry picked as if to build a legal argument. There was very little nod to other schools of thought, but more importantly there wasn't any analysis of possible unintended consequences that might arise from following Desmond's suggestions for eradicating poverty. There was also no good definition of what eradicating poverty really means. Is it just getting people above a certain minimum income? I definitely got the sense that Desmond didn't see that as adequate. There will always be a bottom 15%. But the people comprising that bottom are not always the same year in and year out.
There were some ideas that I agree with (free access to excellent birth control for those below a certain income level seems like a good idea to me, and I could get on board with eliminating the mortgage interest deduction as part of a bigger plan to simply our tax system). But you lose me when you point out that during the pandemic we made the biggest dent in poverty we ever made because we handed out so much money . . .um, did you measure that in inflation adjusted income? Everything got so much more expensive; I find it hard to take that statement seriously.
At the end of the day, there was an opportunity here. I think it was missed. If you like opinion pieces that go on for the length of an entire book, you might enjoy the writing.
January 16, 2023
WOW... still processing this book and will have to read it again. SO much to absorb and definitely contemplate.
I liked this more than Evicted. I couldn't put it down - except to give myself some breathers to absorb all the information Matthew Desmond gives us. Every paragraph builds off the last. He explores every "excuse" people use typically to explain how poverty is a person's bad choices. It leaves you with some changes to consider in your life and in the US's policy decisions. Absolutely devoured it.
I highly recommend for anyone interested in learning more about how our lowest income people struggle to get by paycheck-to-paycheck and how the system is set up to keep them struggling. And, uncomfortably, how those of us who don't struggle in that way benefit by keeping those who do in that position. We quite literally can be comfortable and well-off BECAUSE of the exploitation of the country's poorest people.
I liked this more than Evicted. I couldn't put it down - except to give myself some breathers to absorb all the information Matthew Desmond gives us. Every paragraph builds off the last. He explores every "excuse" people use typically to explain how poverty is a person's bad choices. It leaves you with some changes to consider in your life and in the US's policy decisions. Absolutely devoured it.
I highly recommend for anyone interested in learning more about how our lowest income people struggle to get by paycheck-to-paycheck and how the system is set up to keep them struggling. And, uncomfortably, how those of us who don't struggle in that way benefit by keeping those who do in that position. We quite literally can be comfortable and well-off BECAUSE of the exploitation of the country's poorest people.
April 26, 2023
A really good quick but still dense book that is worth the read but that might be better used as a gift for conservative family since it is largely retreading information most liberals and the left are widely aware of
April 24, 2023
Audiobook…read by Dion Graham
…..5 hours and 40 minutes
NOT A FEEL GOOD BOOK…..
Poverty is hunger….
fear,
pain,
physical pain ….
“a colonoscopy bag in a wheelchair”,
hopelessness,
poor health,
depression . . .
….people living in poverty, often feel isolated and powerless to change their situation.
Poverty is often a vicious cycle — passing down from generation to generation . . .
Poverty is . . .
associated with
homelessness,
crime,
inadequate housing,
inadequate childcare,
fewer decent work opportunities,
People living with poverty don’t even have access to basic services such as electricity and safe drinking water.
The American safety net is broken . . .
….a calling for the rich to pay their taxes!!!
Informative ….
….heartbreaking statistics!!!
…..solutions?
….incredibly difficult, but cannot be done without addressing inequality incomes ….
Again:
….The Rich: pay your taxes!!!
Matthew Desmond shares more effective ways to conquer poverty—“invest in ending poverty”
‘In Our Land of Opportunity’
….than the way we are doing it now ….
….with affordable housing,
and other ways the government can help….
and …
……social reform movements …
…poor people’ campaigns…
racial justice,
opportunity justice…
And we must get organized about it…..
“Poverty will be abolished in America, only when social movements, demand it”!
But overall “Poverty” is
very very sad!!!!
…..5 hours and 40 minutes
NOT A FEEL GOOD BOOK…..
Poverty is hunger….
fear,
pain,
physical pain ….
“a colonoscopy bag in a wheelchair”,
hopelessness,
poor health,
depression . . .
….people living in poverty, often feel isolated and powerless to change their situation.
Poverty is often a vicious cycle — passing down from generation to generation . . .
Poverty is . . .
associated with
homelessness,
crime,
inadequate housing,
inadequate childcare,
fewer decent work opportunities,
People living with poverty don’t even have access to basic services such as electricity and safe drinking water.
The American safety net is broken . . .
….a calling for the rich to pay their taxes!!!
Informative ….
….heartbreaking statistics!!!
…..solutions?
….incredibly difficult, but cannot be done without addressing inequality incomes ….
Again:
….The Rich: pay your taxes!!!
Matthew Desmond shares more effective ways to conquer poverty—“invest in ending poverty”
‘In Our Land of Opportunity’
….than the way we are doing it now ….
….with affordable housing,
and other ways the government can help….
and …
……social reform movements …
…poor people’ campaigns…
racial justice,
opportunity justice…
And we must get organized about it…..
“Poverty will be abolished in America, only when social movements, demand it”!
But overall “Poverty” is
very very sad!!!!
Read
January 19, 2024No rating.
There's a reason why I don't read much non-fiction.
You pick up a book that looks interesting, read it, agree with the points or feel educated by it, come on GR to write your review, see all the people who say it's a bunch of bull, the facts are wrong wrong wrong, the opinions are moronic, the entire thing is not worth the paper it's printed on ....plus all the people like you who felt educated by this apparent bullshit and gave it 4 or 5 stars.
You go from this 🤗 to this 😩.
That's my general non-fic experience in a nutshell-- feeling like an idiot for having been suckered in by a shyster academic who apparently cherry-picks facts to suit their covert political agenda or dumbs down the real science/evidence to nonsensical oatmeal that has nothing to do with reality. (That includes the likes of Malcolm Gladwell and Yuval Harari, just to name some big names you'd think nobody'd call bullshit on.)
So, erm, I really liked this book. I felt educated by it. I appreciated Desmond's anger and passion about the issue of poverty which also angers me into seeing triple.
I didn't understand the nitty-gritty about tax stuff or mortgages, but the general direction and philosophy sounded true, correct and feasible to me.
"Lift the floor by rebalancing our social safety net; empower the poor by reining in exploitation; and invest in broad prosperity by turning away from segregation. That’s how we end poverty in America." (quote from book)
Basically: if we play fair, we'll all benefit. The problem is that we just haven't been playing fair.
I'm not sure what's bullshit about that, but what do I know. 🤷♂️ I'm not a PhD in Sociology nor have I read 3 billion books on American economics.
I enjoyed this read and felt informed by it- you might, too - but I lack the knowledge to judge how factually correct it is, or how feasible. Therefore, no rating.
There's a reason why I don't read much non-fiction.
You pick up a book that looks interesting, read it, agree with the points or feel educated by it, come on GR to write your review, see all the people who say it's a bunch of bull, the facts are wrong wrong wrong, the opinions are moronic, the entire thing is not worth the paper it's printed on ....plus all the people like you who felt educated by this apparent bullshit and gave it 4 or 5 stars.
You go from this 🤗 to this 😩.
That's my general non-fic experience in a nutshell-- feeling like an idiot for having been suckered in by a shyster academic who apparently cherry-picks facts to suit their covert political agenda or dumbs down the real science/evidence to nonsensical oatmeal that has nothing to do with reality. (That includes the likes of Malcolm Gladwell and Yuval Harari, just to name some big names you'd think nobody'd call bullshit on.)
So, erm, I really liked this book. I felt educated by it. I appreciated Desmond's anger and passion about the issue of poverty which also angers me into seeing triple.
I didn't understand the nitty-gritty about tax stuff or mortgages, but the general direction and philosophy sounded true, correct and feasible to me.
"Lift the floor by rebalancing our social safety net; empower the poor by reining in exploitation; and invest in broad prosperity by turning away from segregation. That’s how we end poverty in America." (quote from book)
Basically: if we play fair, we'll all benefit. The problem is that we just haven't been playing fair.
I'm not sure what's bullshit about that, but what do I know. 🤷♂️ I'm not a PhD in Sociology nor have I read 3 billion books on American economics.
I enjoyed this read and felt informed by it- you might, too - but I lack the knowledge to judge how factually correct it is, or how feasible. Therefore, no rating.
January 22, 2024
An incredibly depressing book that should probably be required reading for every American
November 6, 2023
I can sum up the whole book for you in one sentence: If you don't want to follow Desmond's prescription for ending poverty in America, then you're a racist.
And what is his prescription? Massive tax increases, higher minimum wages, expanded access to credit for the poor, zoning changes that require high-density affordable housing in rich neighborhoods, more late-term abortions, and "best-in-class contraceptive care" for all women, especially poor women, funded by the federal government.
Could entrepreneurship, freelancing, or perhaps learning the trades be a part of beating poverty? Not in Desmond's world. These topics aren't discussed. In fact, they're never even mentioned.
I found many of Desmond's arguments to be shallow and poorly thought out. Intentionally or unintentionally, he ignores information that is damaging to his case. For example, he blames the unaffordability of housing on people who bid up the prices. In other words, the rich and middle class are causing the affordability crisis in housing!
But he never stops to ask WHY this is happening. To me, it's clear. Anywhere the government subsidizes the debt purchasing of a product or service, the price of that product or service rises much faster than the rate of inflation. This is proven by the data.
The reason both homes and college degrees are so expensive is because the government has subsidized the debt used to purchase those things, which has caused too much money to flow into those industries, driving up prices. Get rid of cheap, 30-year mortgages and home prices will fall. Same goes for cheap student loan debt.
Anyway, discussions like this are far beyond the scope of Desmond's polemic, which is designed to stir up sympathy for the poor and inspire readers to become "poverty abolitionists," ready to march forward and implement Desmond's prescription for ending poverty.
Sorry, but I'll be opting out. Not because I disagree with the importance of helping those less fortunate, but rather because I disagree with both Desmond's ideas of what causes poverty as well as what he thinks will cure it.
And what is his prescription? Massive tax increases, higher minimum wages, expanded access to credit for the poor, zoning changes that require high-density affordable housing in rich neighborhoods, more late-term abortions, and "best-in-class contraceptive care" for all women, especially poor women, funded by the federal government.
Could entrepreneurship, freelancing, or perhaps learning the trades be a part of beating poverty? Not in Desmond's world. These topics aren't discussed. In fact, they're never even mentioned.
I found many of Desmond's arguments to be shallow and poorly thought out. Intentionally or unintentionally, he ignores information that is damaging to his case. For example, he blames the unaffordability of housing on people who bid up the prices. In other words, the rich and middle class are causing the affordability crisis in housing!
But he never stops to ask WHY this is happening. To me, it's clear. Anywhere the government subsidizes the debt purchasing of a product or service, the price of that product or service rises much faster than the rate of inflation. This is proven by the data.
The reason both homes and college degrees are so expensive is because the government has subsidized the debt used to purchase those things, which has caused too much money to flow into those industries, driving up prices. Get rid of cheap, 30-year mortgages and home prices will fall. Same goes for cheap student loan debt.
Anyway, discussions like this are far beyond the scope of Desmond's polemic, which is designed to stir up sympathy for the poor and inspire readers to become "poverty abolitionists," ready to march forward and implement Desmond's prescription for ending poverty.
Sorry, but I'll be opting out. Not because I disagree with the importance of helping those less fortunate, but rather because I disagree with both Desmond's ideas of what causes poverty as well as what he thinks will cure it.
April 5, 2023
I enjoyed this author’s previous work, Evicted, which was balanced and rigorous, as well as compellingly written. Starting this book, I was immediately struck by a more righteous and aggressive tone which continued throughout the book and detracted somewhat from an air of credibility or objectiveness. My bigger issue with this book though is that I don’t see how it can be effective in instigating change.
Desmond takes the stance that while systemic inequality exists, much of modern American poverty is perpetuated by the American wealthy and middle class because we benefit from it too much to want to change it. Some of it is directly actionable, like we could ban predatory loans and banking practices for low income Americans, not paying workers a living wage as part of keeping costs low for consumers, and homeowners advocating for exclusionary zoning to keep their neighborhoods looking a certain way. But for some of Desmond’s objections, it’s hard for me to see what he wants an individual to do, like the fact that when you account for tax breaks for home ownership etc. rich and middle class people actually get a lot more “government aid” than poor Americans. I guess he’s mad at us about that and wants middle class people to give it back?
Ok, first of all, as a person in her 30’s who has no scope of buying a home any time soon in my expensive AF city, it wasn’t clear to me what Desmond was so mad at me about since I’m not collecting these nice fat tax breaks, doling out predatory loans, paying anyone sub-minimum wage, or charging prisoners too much to call their families. I don’t remember ever acting in a way to perpetuate any of these practices on purpose, and would be really open to hearing how we can reorganize taxes and social programs to address these issues.
I found some of Desmond’s points interesting, like how we’re ignoring inequality by siloing the rich and poor more and more in terms of where we live and how we interact, as well as how much government aid the wealthy and middle class are actually absorbing in relation to those Americans who need it more. However, his tone of impetuously sanctimonious chiding was so unprofessional, in the absence of more data (which Evicted was full of), I found myself having a lot of lingering skepticism after finishing the book. Dude sets out to make well-meaning liberals the villain here. Cool, good luck accomplishing social change having blamed and isolated the very people most likely to act in service of national poverty reduction. The author would do well not to lump middle-class liberals in with tax-evading billionaires.
I wouldn’t recommend this book, and am hoping a more evenhanded and more data-heavy book is written on the topic because the topic is quite interesting.
Desmond takes the stance that while systemic inequality exists, much of modern American poverty is perpetuated by the American wealthy and middle class because we benefit from it too much to want to change it. Some of it is directly actionable, like we could ban predatory loans and banking practices for low income Americans, not paying workers a living wage as part of keeping costs low for consumers, and homeowners advocating for exclusionary zoning to keep their neighborhoods looking a certain way. But for some of Desmond’s objections, it’s hard for me to see what he wants an individual to do, like the fact that when you account for tax breaks for home ownership etc. rich and middle class people actually get a lot more “government aid” than poor Americans. I guess he’s mad at us about that and wants middle class people to give it back?
Ok, first of all, as a person in her 30’s who has no scope of buying a home any time soon in my expensive AF city, it wasn’t clear to me what Desmond was so mad at me about since I’m not collecting these nice fat tax breaks, doling out predatory loans, paying anyone sub-minimum wage, or charging prisoners too much to call their families. I don’t remember ever acting in a way to perpetuate any of these practices on purpose, and would be really open to hearing how we can reorganize taxes and social programs to address these issues.
I found some of Desmond’s points interesting, like how we’re ignoring inequality by siloing the rich and poor more and more in terms of where we live and how we interact, as well as how much government aid the wealthy and middle class are actually absorbing in relation to those Americans who need it more. However, his tone of impetuously sanctimonious chiding was so unprofessional, in the absence of more data (which Evicted was full of), I found myself having a lot of lingering skepticism after finishing the book. Dude sets out to make well-meaning liberals the villain here. Cool, good luck accomplishing social change having blamed and isolated the very people most likely to act in service of national poverty reduction. The author would do well not to lump middle-class liberals in with tax-evading billionaires.
I wouldn’t recommend this book, and am hoping a more evenhanded and more data-heavy book is written on the topic because the topic is quite interesting.
February 3, 2023
This is a thoughtful, no-frills primer on poverty in America and the ways in which existing policies and perspectives affect everyone, rich and poor and in between. Although Desmond refers to US examples and laws, the text is accessible and relevant to those of us who aren’t American.
Overall, I found myself relishing each page as a wealth of knowledge. There is so much that struck me and took me aback, like the chapter on banking, which I suppose reflects my own privilege. Desmond outlines the scope of how poverty is subsidised and how exploitation of poor people benefits those who enjoy security and stability, and how these advantages are passed down through well-off families. Each chapter is well thought out and easy to understand, and I particularly liked that he didn’t include many case studies but presented the information in a straightforward manner (just my own preference). He also concludes with some calls to action and proposes an alternative way of life that could be within reach, in which more people are able to stay afloat to nobody’s detriment. I appreciated that Desmond doesn’t approach this topic in a patronising or academic tone, but rather presents the facts in a sobering way. I highly recommend this short but deeply enlightening book to everyone.
I received an ARC of this novel through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
Overall, I found myself relishing each page as a wealth of knowledge. There is so much that struck me and took me aback, like the chapter on banking, which I suppose reflects my own privilege. Desmond outlines the scope of how poverty is subsidised and how exploitation of poor people benefits those who enjoy security and stability, and how these advantages are passed down through well-off families. Each chapter is well thought out and easy to understand, and I particularly liked that he didn’t include many case studies but presented the information in a straightforward manner (just my own preference). He also concludes with some calls to action and proposes an alternative way of life that could be within reach, in which more people are able to stay afloat to nobody’s detriment. I appreciated that Desmond doesn’t approach this topic in a patronising or academic tone, but rather presents the facts in a sobering way. I highly recommend this short but deeply enlightening book to everyone.
I received an ARC of this novel through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
December 6, 2023
This was a very difficult book to read. I found I had to put it down at intervals due to the strong emotions I was experiencing. At one point, I switched from the audio to the hardcover book. I'm glad the author provided solutions, rather than pointing out the problem only.
Standout quotes:
"Equal opportunity is possible only if everyone can access childcare centers, good schools, and safe neighborhoods - all of which serve as engines of social mobility."
One way we could end poverty in America is to enable "the IRS to do its job. We could afford it if the well-off among us took less from the government. We could afford it if we designed our welfare state to expand opportunity and not guard fortunes."
“The bulk of evidence is that low-income Americans are not taking full advantage of government programs for a much more banal reason: We’ve made it hard and confusing. People often don’t know about aid designated for them or are burdened by the application process.”
There are those that believe that "the poor should change their behavior to escape poverty. Get a better job. Stop having children. Make smarter financial decisions. In truth, it's the other way around. Economic security leads to better choices."
Standout quotes:
"Equal opportunity is possible only if everyone can access childcare centers, good schools, and safe neighborhoods - all of which serve as engines of social mobility."
One way we could end poverty in America is to enable "the IRS to do its job. We could afford it if the well-off among us took less from the government. We could afford it if we designed our welfare state to expand opportunity and not guard fortunes."
“The bulk of evidence is that low-income Americans are not taking full advantage of government programs for a much more banal reason: We’ve made it hard and confusing. People often don’t know about aid designated for them or are burdened by the application process.”
There are those that believe that "the poor should change their behavior to escape poverty. Get a better job. Stop having children. Make smarter financial decisions. In truth, it's the other way around. Economic security leads to better choices."
April 22, 2023
This book is basically an extended op-ed, but it’s an important one, with strong writing and backed by extensive research (the actual text is 189 pages and most of the rest is references). It sets out to answer a couple of basic questions: why do we have so much and such deep poverty in the U.S., despite having so much money? And what can we do about it?
As it turns out, lack of spending on programs and benefits isn’t the answer, or at least not the largest part of the answer: we do spend a lot, but this doesn’t eliminate the systems that create and feed off poverty. For instance: workers’ wages are kept low, collective bargaining is discouraged, and big corporations relying on low-wage workers depend on government benefits like the earned income tax credit and food stamps to subsidize their own low wages. Landlords charge nearly as much for low-income rentals as middle-income ones and make double the profit; anyone who can pay rent can probably pay a mortgage, but banks don’t generally bother with smaller loans in low-income areas, so those buildings have to be bought with cash. Banks make billions in fees that disproportionately impact low-income customers, like overdraft fees, while those who avoid banks altogether or can’t get traditional credit lose hefty amounts of their wages to check cashing fees and payday lenders who fail to disclose the actual average cost of their loans. Meanwhile the public benefits to middle- and high-income people are enormous, through programs like the mortgage interest tax deduction—government handouts mostly don’t go to the poor. And even money intended for the poor gets diverted to other things, like marriage workshops.
Desmond also devotes a hefty chunk of the book to solutions, as it’s not just a nasty few at the top who benefit from poverty: anyone invested in the stock market (where companies can take a hit for improving employee pay) or who opposes construction of higher-density housing in their area (single-family-only zoning restrictions began with racism but also do a handy job of keeping out the poor) does too. He has a number of suggestions, from funding the IRS to actually make the rich pay their taxes, to new forms of collective bargaining, to apartment buildings owned by tenant collectives. He also makes the interesting point that progressives have to stop being such defeatists, fluent in the language of grievance but unwilling to celebrate successes—the pandemic-era rental assistance program saw the greatest investment in housing assistance this country has ever made, but when no one bothered to tout it, what message does that send lawmakers about spending political capital on these things? And how much of the problem boils down to a mindset of artificial scarcity, in which the middle classes are convinced to side against the poor for fear of losing what they do have, while the rich make a killing on everyone and fail to pay their share?
The book does address some myths about poverty, but it is mostly geared toward those inclined to agree that this is an important problem (which is probably the right choice because who else is going to read it?). And while it briefly addresses lived experiences of poverty, that’s not the focus: for more storytelling, check out Evicted by the same author; $2.00 a Day and Random Family are also great choices.
Overall, certainly a lot of food for thought here. In the end so many of our serious problems come back to poverty and inequality, so I hope this book will be widely read and its ideas put into practice.
As it turns out, lack of spending on programs and benefits isn’t the answer, or at least not the largest part of the answer: we do spend a lot, but this doesn’t eliminate the systems that create and feed off poverty. For instance: workers’ wages are kept low, collective bargaining is discouraged, and big corporations relying on low-wage workers depend on government benefits like the earned income tax credit and food stamps to subsidize their own low wages. Landlords charge nearly as much for low-income rentals as middle-income ones and make double the profit; anyone who can pay rent can probably pay a mortgage, but banks don’t generally bother with smaller loans in low-income areas, so those buildings have to be bought with cash. Banks make billions in fees that disproportionately impact low-income customers, like overdraft fees, while those who avoid banks altogether or can’t get traditional credit lose hefty amounts of their wages to check cashing fees and payday lenders who fail to disclose the actual average cost of their loans. Meanwhile the public benefits to middle- and high-income people are enormous, through programs like the mortgage interest tax deduction—government handouts mostly don’t go to the poor. And even money intended for the poor gets diverted to other things, like marriage workshops.
Desmond also devotes a hefty chunk of the book to solutions, as it’s not just a nasty few at the top who benefit from poverty: anyone invested in the stock market (where companies can take a hit for improving employee pay) or who opposes construction of higher-density housing in their area (single-family-only zoning restrictions began with racism but also do a handy job of keeping out the poor) does too. He has a number of suggestions, from funding the IRS to actually make the rich pay their taxes, to new forms of collective bargaining, to apartment buildings owned by tenant collectives. He also makes the interesting point that progressives have to stop being such defeatists, fluent in the language of grievance but unwilling to celebrate successes—the pandemic-era rental assistance program saw the greatest investment in housing assistance this country has ever made, but when no one bothered to tout it, what message does that send lawmakers about spending political capital on these things? And how much of the problem boils down to a mindset of artificial scarcity, in which the middle classes are convinced to side against the poor for fear of losing what they do have, while the rich make a killing on everyone and fail to pay their share?
The book does address some myths about poverty, but it is mostly geared toward those inclined to agree that this is an important problem (which is probably the right choice because who else is going to read it?). And while it briefly addresses lived experiences of poverty, that’s not the focus: for more storytelling, check out Evicted by the same author; $2.00 a Day and Random Family are also great choices.
Overall, certainly a lot of food for thought here. In the end so many of our serious problems come back to poverty and inequality, so I hope this book will be widely read and its ideas put into practice.
February 21, 2024
3.5 stars. reading vlog: https://youtu.be/fod4rfv-qz4
a super important read, but felt much too short to really get into the depth of the issue, and as a UK reader I don't the extreme focus on US contexts was effective for me
a super important read, but felt much too short to really get into the depth of the issue, and as a UK reader I don't the extreme focus on US contexts was effective for me
July 15, 2023
Yes, poverty can be abolished in America.
It is not an exaggeration to claim that poverty can be abolished in America. And it could happen nearly overnight. Poverty exists in tandem with wealth, the two are inseparable and Desmond makes it pretty clear here that if you are not poor, you are benefitting from the impoverished. In Poverty, by America, Desmond casts away the stereotypes that it is the impoverished that persists off the government nanny state and shows that it is the very rich and middle class that exploit the government even more through tax breaks and subsidies. If you simply just taxed capital and the rich more and stopped given a leg up to people that already have wealth accumulation and targeted those government funds into people who are actually poor, poverty could be abolished without adding a dime to the deficit.
We have an entire tax system designed by the rich and for the rich including low capitals gains taxes, mortgage interest deduction and overall regressive taxing on capital. We don't even need to get into multi-national companies completely avoiding taxes and the ridiculous low corporate taxes. And no, taxing capital less does not lead to trickle down wealth. Supply side economics is a corporate lie and is demonstrably not true as evidenced by wage stagnation and nearly flat poverty rates for the last forty years. Desmond makes it pretty clear that most government aid doesn't even go to the poor and states widely misuse government funded programs designed to benefit the poor. And let's not mention the myriad ways in which the poor are exploited: suppressed wages, non-compete contracts, forced in house arbitration, contracted work. Housing zoning ordinances are just rebranded redlining. The argument "well anyone claim invest money" is ridiculous. The entrance fee to grow your wealth is extremely high, falls along racial lines, and the majority of stocks are owned by a minority of the very rich.
He sheds the ideological monikers and gets into the technical and wonky details about how to engineer a poverty-free society. In this way, Desmond is a technocrat and clearly supports social democratic policy. I personally don't care what someone wants to call it to align with their ideology but the facts are that our system supports the aristocracy. There are nothing free about American markets. A system that is actually pro-competitive market, not pro-business, and taxes capital progressively to bolster the social state, would benefit our entire society.
Key question: is technocracy enough to implement these changes? In my opinion, absolutely not. And I think Desmond gets into this a little bit saying that anti-poverty action needs a flare of populism. Instead of corporations having BLM logos on their websites, a better questions to ask them is: how much are you paying your workers. Activism should become anti-poverty, something that would unite across racial and class lines.
It is not an exaggeration to claim that poverty can be abolished in America. And it could happen nearly overnight. Poverty exists in tandem with wealth, the two are inseparable and Desmond makes it pretty clear here that if you are not poor, you are benefitting from the impoverished. In Poverty, by America, Desmond casts away the stereotypes that it is the impoverished that persists off the government nanny state and shows that it is the very rich and middle class that exploit the government even more through tax breaks and subsidies. If you simply just taxed capital and the rich more and stopped given a leg up to people that already have wealth accumulation and targeted those government funds into people who are actually poor, poverty could be abolished without adding a dime to the deficit.
We have an entire tax system designed by the rich and for the rich including low capitals gains taxes, mortgage interest deduction and overall regressive taxing on capital. We don't even need to get into multi-national companies completely avoiding taxes and the ridiculous low corporate taxes. And no, taxing capital less does not lead to trickle down wealth. Supply side economics is a corporate lie and is demonstrably not true as evidenced by wage stagnation and nearly flat poverty rates for the last forty years. Desmond makes it pretty clear that most government aid doesn't even go to the poor and states widely misuse government funded programs designed to benefit the poor. And let's not mention the myriad ways in which the poor are exploited: suppressed wages, non-compete contracts, forced in house arbitration, contracted work. Housing zoning ordinances are just rebranded redlining. The argument "well anyone claim invest money" is ridiculous. The entrance fee to grow your wealth is extremely high, falls along racial lines, and the majority of stocks are owned by a minority of the very rich.
He sheds the ideological monikers and gets into the technical and wonky details about how to engineer a poverty-free society. In this way, Desmond is a technocrat and clearly supports social democratic policy. I personally don't care what someone wants to call it to align with their ideology but the facts are that our system supports the aristocracy. There are nothing free about American markets. A system that is actually pro-competitive market, not pro-business, and taxes capital progressively to bolster the social state, would benefit our entire society.
Key question: is technocracy enough to implement these changes? In my opinion, absolutely not. And I think Desmond gets into this a little bit saying that anti-poverty action needs a flare of populism. Instead of corporations having BLM logos on their websites, a better questions to ask them is: how much are you paying your workers. Activism should become anti-poverty, something that would unite across racial and class lines.
May 2, 2023
Desmond’s perspective indicates the book was written for guilty liberals who want to feel good about themselves by conceiving themselves poverty abolitionists. While the vision to abolish poverty is worthy, the means and argumentation are weak and put the burden of progress on individual choice, not collective action.
Will poverty still exist if rich elites choose to only buy their products from B Lab certified companies (as the author suggests in the “Empower the Poor” chapter)? Yes. Will poverty still exist if lower income families are shuffled to higher income neighborhoods, abandoning their communities and historical homes, in pursuit of exclusionary educations purposely concentrated in areas of the rich and white (chapter “Tear down the Walls”)? Of course. Will poverty still exist if we do not “restore unions to their former glory” (an exercise the author calls “foolish” on p 140), forget organizing individual workplaces (p 141), and simplistically pursue raising the minimum wage for workers who are exploited in hundreds of ways? Duh. Will poverty still exist if we do not demand “redistribution” (p 132) and instead pursue a “capitalism that serves the people” (p 143), as the author wants? Absolutely, it will.
Poverty is a requisite symptom of the system of capitalism. It is infuriating for the author to speak of abolishing a symptom, when he would have us salvage the very system that produces it and prospers from it.
Will poverty still exist if rich elites choose to only buy their products from B Lab certified companies (as the author suggests in the “Empower the Poor” chapter)? Yes. Will poverty still exist if lower income families are shuffled to higher income neighborhoods, abandoning their communities and historical homes, in pursuit of exclusionary educations purposely concentrated in areas of the rich and white (chapter “Tear down the Walls”)? Of course. Will poverty still exist if we do not “restore unions to their former glory” (an exercise the author calls “foolish” on p 140), forget organizing individual workplaces (p 141), and simplistically pursue raising the minimum wage for workers who are exploited in hundreds of ways? Duh. Will poverty still exist if we do not demand “redistribution” (p 132) and instead pursue a “capitalism that serves the people” (p 143), as the author wants? Absolutely, it will.
Poverty is a requisite symptom of the system of capitalism. It is infuriating for the author to speak of abolishing a symptom, when he would have us salvage the very system that produces it and prospers from it.
March 27, 2023
The arguments in this book go like this: There’s no evidence for this view I disagree with and my evidence for the opposite view I want you, the reader, to subscribe to is an anecdote about someone I once met in Minnesota.
April 6, 2023
Once again, as with Evicted, the first part of the book is eye opening, especially for folks who don’t work day in and day out around people experiencing poverty, homelessness, evictions, job loss, and more. It appears that his goal is to awaken middle and upper class people to realize their complicity in our inequality problem.
Desmond then misdiagnoses the problem, saying we can have capitalism and eliminate poverty. He is at great pains to redeem capitalism even though this is the essential cause of exploitation. This is not to say he doesn’t have some good policy suggestions but, as one example, expanding Section 8 vouches with no talk of rent control is massively missing the point. Inequality is a symptom, and the solution is not getting individuals to care more and do more, but to create systemic solutions that root out the cause of poverty. And that cause is the exploitative native of the capitalist economy. The results we’re getting are not unusual. They are exactly what you would expect.
Desmond then misdiagnoses the problem, saying we can have capitalism and eliminate poverty. He is at great pains to redeem capitalism even though this is the essential cause of exploitation. This is not to say he doesn’t have some good policy suggestions but, as one example, expanding Section 8 vouches with no talk of rent control is massively missing the point. Inequality is a symptom, and the solution is not getting individuals to care more and do more, but to create systemic solutions that root out the cause of poverty. And that cause is the exploitative native of the capitalist economy. The results we’re getting are not unusual. They are exactly what you would expect.
Read
April 8, 2023How could there be, I wondered, such bald scarcity amid such waste and opulence?
Exploitation, by America.
Mostly a collection of depressing statistics in narrative form—very journalistically surface, not much depth, just facts. But it is all vital information that more people should be aware of and care about. This would make an excellent documentary, especially with the added aspect of visuals. It’s hard to envision true poverty if you’ve never been there.
Exploitation of the marginalized should not benefit a country. Too much wealth is accumulated on the backs of the impoverished, while simultaneously keeping that wealth out of their reach.
Exploitation, by America.
Mostly a collection of depressing statistics in narrative form—very journalistically surface, not much depth, just facts. But it is all vital information that more people should be aware of and care about. This would make an excellent documentary, especially with the added aspect of visuals. It’s hard to envision true poverty if you’ve never been there.
Exploitation of the marginalized should not benefit a country. Too much wealth is accumulated on the backs of the impoverished, while simultaneously keeping that wealth out of their reach.
February 1, 2024
Poverty, by America is another excellent and unfortunately, relevant, book by sociologist and professor Matthew Desmond. In this book, Desmond offers jarring truths about the state of poverty in the US — 1/8 children here do not have basic necessities.
“Poverty is diminished life and personhood. It changes how you think and prevents you from realizing your full potential. It shrinks the mental energy you can dedicate to decisions, forcing you to focus on the latest stressor an overdue gas bill, a lost job- at the expense of everything else … Poverty can cause anyone to make decisions that look ill-advised and even downright stupid to those of us unbothered by scarcity.”
I read Evicted by Desmond back in 2017 and it’s still a book I think about today. As he did in Evicted, Desmond offers digestible actions in Poverty, by America that can be taken to help eradicate poverty.
It’s overwhelming to assess the state of the world today and even just one country alone — How can a nation that proclaims to be one of the best in the world (and is, in many regards) allow a problem like poverty to loom and persist as it does here?
”Poverty isn't a line. It's a tight knot of social maladies. It is connected to every social problem we care about — crime, health, education, housing — and its persistence in American life means that millions of families are denied safety and security and dignity in one of the richest nations in the history of the world.”
In addition to this book, I also recommend listening to the Armchair Expert podcast episode featuring Desmond. It offers more on this topic and I appreciate the acknowledgement that there isn’t one single, simple answer to solve the problem, but we also have to start somewhere, taking at least some action.
“Poverty is diminished life and personhood. It changes how you think and prevents you from realizing your full potential. It shrinks the mental energy you can dedicate to decisions, forcing you to focus on the latest stressor an overdue gas bill, a lost job- at the expense of everything else … Poverty can cause anyone to make decisions that look ill-advised and even downright stupid to those of us unbothered by scarcity.”
I read Evicted by Desmond back in 2017 and it’s still a book I think about today. As he did in Evicted, Desmond offers digestible actions in Poverty, by America that can be taken to help eradicate poverty.
It’s overwhelming to assess the state of the world today and even just one country alone — How can a nation that proclaims to be one of the best in the world (and is, in many regards) allow a problem like poverty to loom and persist as it does here?
”Poverty isn't a line. It's a tight knot of social maladies. It is connected to every social problem we care about — crime, health, education, housing — and its persistence in American life means that millions of families are denied safety and security and dignity in one of the richest nations in the history of the world.”
In addition to this book, I also recommend listening to the Armchair Expert podcast episode featuring Desmond. It offers more on this topic and I appreciate the acknowledgement that there isn’t one single, simple answer to solve the problem, but we also have to start somewhere, taking at least some action.
June 21, 2023
It's hard not to compare this to Evicted, as that was an astounding work of non-fiction and Poverty is pretty much a spiritual successor. However, where Evicted found strength in creating a narrative of real people alongside the societal breakdown and discussion, Poverty is entirely the societal breakdown and discussion. That's not to say that Poverty is a lesser book - it just didn't have the same emotional impact that Evicted had for me.
If you're like me and already acutely aware of the vast systemic issues that have created and keep creating poverty in America, not a lot here will be new information. If you are or were in poverty (like me) then none of this is new. But Desmond's strength as a writer is in collecting all the data and presenting it in such a way that is easy to comprehend, and hopefully galvanizes the reader to take action in any way.
The audiobook is great; Dion Graham is expressive and really gets Desmond's frustration and anger across very well, without going overboard. The only time he fully goes for it is the last section of the Epilogue that is basically a call to arms, and it was fantastic.
Honestly, this book did its job in making me feel like I can do something small in my small life to try to be a poverty abolitionist and not just stand by and think that the problem is too big to even care about.
If you're like me and already acutely aware of the vast systemic issues that have created and keep creating poverty in America, not a lot here will be new information. If you are or were in poverty (like me) then none of this is new. But Desmond's strength as a writer is in collecting all the data and presenting it in such a way that is easy to comprehend, and hopefully galvanizes the reader to take action in any way.
The audiobook is great; Dion Graham is expressive and really gets Desmond's frustration and anger across very well, without going overboard. The only time he fully goes for it is the last section of the Epilogue that is basically a call to arms, and it was fantastic.
Honestly, this book did its job in making me feel like I can do something small in my small life to try to be a poverty abolitionist and not just stand by and think that the problem is too big to even care about.
February 25, 2023
A very convincing call to become poverty abolitionists. Desmond, again, persuasively debunks common rationalizations for why America has so many living in poverty. Read this.
![Profile Image for laurel [the suspected bibliophile].](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/users/1645808644i/7494844._UX200_CR0,6,200,200_.jpg)
October 9, 2023
A must-read.
Short. Informative. Rage-inducing.
End tax breaks for the wealthy—and stop trying to make trickle down economics happen. It's never going to happen!
The much-lauded (by the GOP) tax breaks for the upper earning tiers strips income from social programs, continuing to harm those living in poverty. For a country with as much wealth as it has, creating a resource-scarcity mentality and allowing citizens to live in poverty is abhorrent and geared toward continuing to source cheap labor and increase profit margins.
Basically, what the government is doing to alleviate poverty clearly isn't working. It is barely treating symptoms, and making it incredibly difficult for individuals to access assistance, meaning billions of dollars in assistance funding is left unused each year. Meanwhile, benefits to the wealthy increase, while the yawning wealth gap causes more anxiety for everyone.
Capitalism.
It just isn't working for everyone.
To the potential "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" armchair economists who might argue in my comment section: take several seats and read this book. It's not a matter of "just work harder" or "create a millionaire mindset."
Short. Informative. Rage-inducing.
End tax breaks for the wealthy—and stop trying to make trickle down economics happen. It's never going to happen!
The much-lauded (by the GOP) tax breaks for the upper earning tiers strips income from social programs, continuing to harm those living in poverty. For a country with as much wealth as it has, creating a resource-scarcity mentality and allowing citizens to live in poverty is abhorrent and geared toward continuing to source cheap labor and increase profit margins.
Basically, what the government is doing to alleviate poverty clearly isn't working. It is barely treating symptoms, and making it incredibly difficult for individuals to access assistance, meaning billions of dollars in assistance funding is left unused each year. Meanwhile, benefits to the wealthy increase, while the yawning wealth gap causes more anxiety for everyone.
Capitalism.
It just isn't working for everyone.
To the potential "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" armchair economists who might argue in my comment section: take several seats and read this book. It's not a matter of "just work harder" or "create a millionaire mindset."
April 6, 2023
This book reads like a dream--a dream we all need to invest in. Poverty exists because we will it in to being through a variety of means, and because so many benefit from its existence. Desmond cogently lays out how our policies and our essentially segregationist attitudes prop up this inequity over and over again. This book is a call to poverty abolition, a call to reexamine society as we have come to accept and rationalize it. Stirring and galvanizing.
Urgent, compelling, and positively oriented to addressing how we all play a role in maintaining the conditions of poverty and absolutely have a role in dismantling it. This book is a must read.
"People benefit from poverty in all kinds of ways. It's the plainest social fact there is, and yet when people put it like this, the air becomes charged. You feel rude bringing it up....People accuse you of inciting class warfare when you're merely pointing out the obvious." (42)
Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981 (48-9)
"Even as more and more of us are shopping according to our values, economic justice does not seem to be among our top priorities. We know if our vegetables are local and organic, but we don't ask what the farmworkers made picking them. When we purchase a plane ticket, we are shown the carbon emissions for the flight, but we aren't told if the flight attendants are unionized. We reward companies that run antiracist marketing campaigns without recognizing how these campaigns can distract from the companies' abysmal labor practices, as if shortchanging workers isn't often itself a kind of racism. (The economists Valerie Wilson and William Darity, Jr., have shown that the Black-white pay gap as increased since 2000, and today, the average Black worker makes roughly 74 centers for every dollar the average white worker does.) We recognize the kind of coffee we should drink or the kind of shoes we should wear to signal our political affiliations, but we are often unaware of what difference that makes for the workers themselves, if it makes a difference at all. My family stopped shopping at Home Depot after learning about the company's hefty donations to Republican lawmakers who refused to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. We have yet to inquire about the pay and benefits offered at Ace Hardware." (60)
"There exists a long history of slum exploitation in America. Money made slums because slums made money." (64)
"Many writers have depicted America's poor as unseen, shadowed, and forgotten people: as 'other' or 'invisible.' But markets have never failed to notice the poor, and this has been particularly true of the market for money itself." (71)
"Poverty isn't simply the condition of not having enough money. It's the condition of not having enough choice and being taken advantage of because of that." (78)
"The American poor are terrible about being welfare dependent. I wish they were better at it, just as I wish that we as a nation devoted the same amount of thoughtfulness, creativity, and tenacity to connecting poor families with programs that would alleviate their hunger and ease their hardships as multinational multinational corporations devote to convincing us to buy their potato chips and car tires." (90)
"Today, the biggest beneficiaries of federal aid are affluent families." (93)
"The American government gives the most help to those who need it the least. This is the true nature of our welfare state, and it has far-reaching implications, not only for our bank accounts and poverty levels, but also for our psychology and civic spirit." (95)
"Given this, I suspect there might be something deeper at work, another reason for our unwillingness to acknowledge the invisible welfare state: that middle-and upper-class Americans believe they--but not the poor--are entitled to government help. This has been a long-standing explanation among liberal thinkers: that Americans' hardwired belief in meritocracy drives them to conflate material success with deservingness. I don't buy it. We are bombarded with too much clear evidence to the contrary. Do we really believe the top 1 percent are more deserving than the rest of the country? Are we really, in 2023, going to argue that white people have far more wealth than Black people because white people have worked harder for it--or that women are paid less because they deserve less? Do we have the audacity to point to housekeepers with skin peeling from chemicals or berry pickers who can no longer stand up straight or the millions of other poor working Americans and claim they are truck at the bottom because they are lazy? 'I've worked hard to get where I am,' you might say. Well, sure. But we know untold numbers of poor people have worked hard to get where they are, too." (99-100)
"The American aristocracy of today seem to prefer complaining to one another and working nonstop. Has here ever been another time, in the full sweep of human history, when so many people had so much and yet felt so deprived and anxious?" (104)
"In many corners of America, a pricey mortgage doesn't just buy a home; it also buys a good education, a well-run soccer league, and public safety so thick and expected it appears natural, instead of the product of social design." (112)
"Most Americans want the country to build more public housing for low-income families, but they do not want that public housing (or any sort of multifamily housing) in their neighborhood. Democrats are more likely than Republican to champion public housing in the abstract, but among homeowners, they are no more likely to welcome new housing developments in their own backyards. One study found that conservative renters were in fact more likely to support a proposal for a 120-unit apartment building in their community than liberal homeowners. Perhaps we are not so polarized after all. Maybe above a certain income level, we are all segregationists." (115)
"Instead, we let the rich slide and give the most to those who have plenty already, creating a welfare state that heavily favors the upper class. And then our elected officials have the audacity--the shamelessness, really--to fabricate stories about poor people's dependency on government aid and shoot down proposals to reduce poverty because they would cost too much. Glancing at the price tag of some program that would cut child poverty in half or give all Americans access to a doctor, they suck their teeth and ask, 'But how can we afford it?" How can we afford it? What a sinful question. What a selfish, dishonest question, one asked as if the answer wasn't staring us straight in the face. We could afford it if the well-off among us took less from the government. We could afford it if we designed our welfare state to expand opportunity and not guard fortunes." (121)
"Imagine if we'd worked together to ensure that the low eviction regime established during the pandemic because the new normal. But we chose to shrug instead. Poor renters in the future will pay for this, as will the Democratic party, incessantly blamed for having a 'messaging problem' when perhaps the matter is that liberals have a despondency problem: fluent in the language of grievance and bumbling in the language of repair.
Meaningful, tangible, change has arrived, and we couldn't see it. When we refuse to recognize what works, we risk swallowing the lie that nothing does. We risk imagining the future only as more of the same. We risk giving into despair, perhaps the most exculpating of all emotions, and submitting to cynicism, perhaps the most conservative of all belief systems. This can suffocate meaningful action, and it certainly doesn't inspire others to join the cause." (135)
"Defenders of the status quo, this pro-segregationist propertied class, have shown themselves to be willing to do the tedious work of defending the wall." (169)
"There is a serious sociological insight here. When the ground feels unsteady underfoot, we tend to hunker down and protect our own, growing less willing to consider what we have and more apt to pay mind to what we could lose. Stacks of social psychological evidence confirm that when we feel resources are scarce or could be, when we sense that our status (or that of our racial group) is slipping, we discard our commitments to equal opportunity. If you survey the American public, you learn that most of us want less poverty and less inequality, at least in principle. But when you ask us about specific policies to accomplish those ends, we begin to equivocate, especially if we feel those policies could cost our families somehow." (171)
"The evidence is in, and it's clear: We can integrate our communities without depressing property values, compromising school quality, or harming affluent children. So why do so many of us remain 'unsure of our own social position'? Why do we scare so easily?
We have been taught this fear. Our institutions have socialized us to scarcity, creating artificial resource shortages and then normalizing them.
...Or consider how a scarcity mindset frames so much of our politics, crippling our imaginations and stunting our moral ambitions. How many times have we all legislators and academics and pundits begin their remarks with the phrase 'In a world of scare resources...' as if that state of affairs were self-evident, obvious, as unassailable as natural law, instead of something we've fashioned?" (171-2)
"If we had to boil it down to a single concept, we might just say that without poverty, we'd be more free. A nation invested in ending poverty is a nation that it truly, obsessively committed to freedom. Franklin Roosevelt was right: 'True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men,' and a country besieged by poverty is not a free country. Compared to a freedom that is contingent on our bank accounts--rich people's freedom--a freedom that comes from shared responsibility, shared purpose and gain, and shared abundance and commitment strikes me as a different sort of human liberation altogether: deeper, warmer, more lush. This kind of freedom 'makes you happy--and it makes you accountable,' as Robin Wall Kimmerer has put it. 'All flourishing is mutual.' Why? Because poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere." (181)
"Poverty will be abolished in America only when a mass movement demands it." (185)
"All of us can learn from, support, and join movements led by those who have intimate knowledge of poverty's many slights and humiliations: attending meetings, signing petitions, donating time and money, amplifying social media messages, working the phone banks, adding our voices to public protests, and running supplies to the picket line.
'Get into relationship.' That's the clear advice of Deepak Bhargava, former president and executive director of the Center for Community Change, to those seeking to be allies in the movement to abolish poverty. 'Find some way in your life to be in relationship with working class and poor people.' Deepak wasn't speaking about charity, where a person of means serves someone in need, but about genuine connection, one built on mutual respect and understanding, where Americans across the class spectrum join low-income Americans in a political struggle for more dignity and more power." (185)
"If you have found security and prosperity and wish the same for your neighbors, if you demand a dignified life for all people in America, if you love fairness and justice and want no part of exploitation for personal gain, if all the hardship in your country violates your sense of decency, this is your fight, too." (189)
"We don't need to outsmart this problem. We need to outhate it." (189)
Urgent, compelling, and positively oriented to addressing how we all play a role in maintaining the conditions of poverty and absolutely have a role in dismantling it. This book is a must read.
"People benefit from poverty in all kinds of ways. It's the plainest social fact there is, and yet when people put it like this, the air becomes charged. You feel rude bringing it up....People accuse you of inciting class warfare when you're merely pointing out the obvious." (42)
Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981 (48-9)
"Even as more and more of us are shopping according to our values, economic justice does not seem to be among our top priorities. We know if our vegetables are local and organic, but we don't ask what the farmworkers made picking them. When we purchase a plane ticket, we are shown the carbon emissions for the flight, but we aren't told if the flight attendants are unionized. We reward companies that run antiracist marketing campaigns without recognizing how these campaigns can distract from the companies' abysmal labor practices, as if shortchanging workers isn't often itself a kind of racism. (The economists Valerie Wilson and William Darity, Jr., have shown that the Black-white pay gap as increased since 2000, and today, the average Black worker makes roughly 74 centers for every dollar the average white worker does.) We recognize the kind of coffee we should drink or the kind of shoes we should wear to signal our political affiliations, but we are often unaware of what difference that makes for the workers themselves, if it makes a difference at all. My family stopped shopping at Home Depot after learning about the company's hefty donations to Republican lawmakers who refused to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. We have yet to inquire about the pay and benefits offered at Ace Hardware." (60)
"There exists a long history of slum exploitation in America. Money made slums because slums made money." (64)
"Many writers have depicted America's poor as unseen, shadowed, and forgotten people: as 'other' or 'invisible.' But markets have never failed to notice the poor, and this has been particularly true of the market for money itself." (71)
"Poverty isn't simply the condition of not having enough money. It's the condition of not having enough choice and being taken advantage of because of that." (78)
"The American poor are terrible about being welfare dependent. I wish they were better at it, just as I wish that we as a nation devoted the same amount of thoughtfulness, creativity, and tenacity to connecting poor families with programs that would alleviate their hunger and ease their hardships as multinational multinational corporations devote to convincing us to buy their potato chips and car tires." (90)
"Today, the biggest beneficiaries of federal aid are affluent families." (93)
"The American government gives the most help to those who need it the least. This is the true nature of our welfare state, and it has far-reaching implications, not only for our bank accounts and poverty levels, but also for our psychology and civic spirit." (95)
"Given this, I suspect there might be something deeper at work, another reason for our unwillingness to acknowledge the invisible welfare state: that middle-and upper-class Americans believe they--but not the poor--are entitled to government help. This has been a long-standing explanation among liberal thinkers: that Americans' hardwired belief in meritocracy drives them to conflate material success with deservingness. I don't buy it. We are bombarded with too much clear evidence to the contrary. Do we really believe the top 1 percent are more deserving than the rest of the country? Are we really, in 2023, going to argue that white people have far more wealth than Black people because white people have worked harder for it--or that women are paid less because they deserve less? Do we have the audacity to point to housekeepers with skin peeling from chemicals or berry pickers who can no longer stand up straight or the millions of other poor working Americans and claim they are truck at the bottom because they are lazy? 'I've worked hard to get where I am,' you might say. Well, sure. But we know untold numbers of poor people have worked hard to get where they are, too." (99-100)
"The American aristocracy of today seem to prefer complaining to one another and working nonstop. Has here ever been another time, in the full sweep of human history, when so many people had so much and yet felt so deprived and anxious?" (104)
"In many corners of America, a pricey mortgage doesn't just buy a home; it also buys a good education, a well-run soccer league, and public safety so thick and expected it appears natural, instead of the product of social design." (112)
"Most Americans want the country to build more public housing for low-income families, but they do not want that public housing (or any sort of multifamily housing) in their neighborhood. Democrats are more likely than Republican to champion public housing in the abstract, but among homeowners, they are no more likely to welcome new housing developments in their own backyards. One study found that conservative renters were in fact more likely to support a proposal for a 120-unit apartment building in their community than liberal homeowners. Perhaps we are not so polarized after all. Maybe above a certain income level, we are all segregationists." (115)
"Instead, we let the rich slide and give the most to those who have plenty already, creating a welfare state that heavily favors the upper class. And then our elected officials have the audacity--the shamelessness, really--to fabricate stories about poor people's dependency on government aid and shoot down proposals to reduce poverty because they would cost too much. Glancing at the price tag of some program that would cut child poverty in half or give all Americans access to a doctor, they suck their teeth and ask, 'But how can we afford it?" How can we afford it? What a sinful question. What a selfish, dishonest question, one asked as if the answer wasn't staring us straight in the face. We could afford it if the well-off among us took less from the government. We could afford it if we designed our welfare state to expand opportunity and not guard fortunes." (121)
"Imagine if we'd worked together to ensure that the low eviction regime established during the pandemic because the new normal. But we chose to shrug instead. Poor renters in the future will pay for this, as will the Democratic party, incessantly blamed for having a 'messaging problem' when perhaps the matter is that liberals have a despondency problem: fluent in the language of grievance and bumbling in the language of repair.
Meaningful, tangible, change has arrived, and we couldn't see it. When we refuse to recognize what works, we risk swallowing the lie that nothing does. We risk imagining the future only as more of the same. We risk giving into despair, perhaps the most exculpating of all emotions, and submitting to cynicism, perhaps the most conservative of all belief systems. This can suffocate meaningful action, and it certainly doesn't inspire others to join the cause." (135)
"Defenders of the status quo, this pro-segregationist propertied class, have shown themselves to be willing to do the tedious work of defending the wall." (169)
"There is a serious sociological insight here. When the ground feels unsteady underfoot, we tend to hunker down and protect our own, growing less willing to consider what we have and more apt to pay mind to what we could lose. Stacks of social psychological evidence confirm that when we feel resources are scarce or could be, when we sense that our status (or that of our racial group) is slipping, we discard our commitments to equal opportunity. If you survey the American public, you learn that most of us want less poverty and less inequality, at least in principle. But when you ask us about specific policies to accomplish those ends, we begin to equivocate, especially if we feel those policies could cost our families somehow." (171)
"The evidence is in, and it's clear: We can integrate our communities without depressing property values, compromising school quality, or harming affluent children. So why do so many of us remain 'unsure of our own social position'? Why do we scare so easily?
We have been taught this fear. Our institutions have socialized us to scarcity, creating artificial resource shortages and then normalizing them.
...Or consider how a scarcity mindset frames so much of our politics, crippling our imaginations and stunting our moral ambitions. How many times have we all legislators and academics and pundits begin their remarks with the phrase 'In a world of scare resources...' as if that state of affairs were self-evident, obvious, as unassailable as natural law, instead of something we've fashioned?" (171-2)
"If we had to boil it down to a single concept, we might just say that without poverty, we'd be more free. A nation invested in ending poverty is a nation that it truly, obsessively committed to freedom. Franklin Roosevelt was right: 'True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men,' and a country besieged by poverty is not a free country. Compared to a freedom that is contingent on our bank accounts--rich people's freedom--a freedom that comes from shared responsibility, shared purpose and gain, and shared abundance and commitment strikes me as a different sort of human liberation altogether: deeper, warmer, more lush. This kind of freedom 'makes you happy--and it makes you accountable,' as Robin Wall Kimmerer has put it. 'All flourishing is mutual.' Why? Because poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere." (181)
"Poverty will be abolished in America only when a mass movement demands it." (185)
"All of us can learn from, support, and join movements led by those who have intimate knowledge of poverty's many slights and humiliations: attending meetings, signing petitions, donating time and money, amplifying social media messages, working the phone banks, adding our voices to public protests, and running supplies to the picket line.
'Get into relationship.' That's the clear advice of Deepak Bhargava, former president and executive director of the Center for Community Change, to those seeking to be allies in the movement to abolish poverty. 'Find some way in your life to be in relationship with working class and poor people.' Deepak wasn't speaking about charity, where a person of means serves someone in need, but about genuine connection, one built on mutual respect and understanding, where Americans across the class spectrum join low-income Americans in a political struggle for more dignity and more power." (185)
"If you have found security and prosperity and wish the same for your neighbors, if you demand a dignified life for all people in America, if you love fairness and justice and want no part of exploitation for personal gain, if all the hardship in your country violates your sense of decency, this is your fight, too." (189)
"We don't need to outsmart this problem. We need to outhate it." (189)
July 1, 2023
Actually, I’m a little disappointed in this book. It feels like a missed opportunity to be a better work. Desmond’s heart is in the right place. For people unfamiliar with the social and economic inequality in America, this may be a good place to start. The first half of the book is filled with some analysis fueled by moral outrage. It can be edifying and cathartic to fume. A little indignation to raise consciousness every now and then is welcome. However, poverty in America is such a big intractable problem. We could hope for a fresh take or a new pathway to fight. Sadly, as it goes along, the text seems to get stuck in second gear. For those versed in these intractable problems, Desmond fails to reckon with the thing standing in the way of change which is entrenched power. Instead, he just jumps into policy recommendations. The last half of the book reads like a long suggestions list, which is often the final weakest chapter of many books. Who exactly is the audience for these prescriptions? Is it the same as the readership for this book? Can they do anything about it? Without reckoning with power, this is a long wish list. A better book would grapple with a theory of change and the hard path to get there. Maybe, as is, it helps new initiates get up to speed.
October 26, 2023
After thoroughly describing the nature and extent of poverty in the United States, and detailing its consequences (e.g., worse health and reduced cognitive bandwidth), Matthew Desmond tells us how to eliminate it, how to engage in “poverty abolitionism.” The two most important parts of his argument are as follows:
1) “The United States could effectively end poverty in America tomorrow without increasing the deficit … We just have to stop spending so much on the rich.”
Government assistance in the United States currently prioritizes “the subsidization of affluence over the alleviation of poverty.” The hidden (and primary) welfare state that exists in our country is designed to protect the wealth of the rich, not to foster economic opportunity for the disadvantaged. As Desmond emphasizes, “the biggest beneficiary of federal aid are affluent families.” They benefit from tax breaks, from employer-sponsored health insurance, etc. For example, whereas most Americans pay about 95% of the taxes they owe, the wealthy pay only about 75%, and the wealthy are also taxed on a much smaller proportion of their overall wealth. (This is why the sales tax is so regressive; wealthy people spend a smaller proportion of their income.) More generally, there are many millions of dollars of goverment funds that are supposed to be allocated to assisting the poor that are either misspent (e.g., on fees for “speakers” like Brett Favre) or that are not spent at all. Indeed, some states have enough unspent welfare funds to give each poor child thousands of dollars.
2) “Choice is the antidote for exploitation.”
The non-poor, and especially the rich, exploit the poor by limiting ability to make meaningful choices in the labor, housing, and financial markets (e.g., with non-compete clauses at work, limited geographic access to banks). This drives down poor Americans’ wages and forces them “to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit.” For example, predatory check-cashing companies are concentrated near disadvantaged minority (Black and Latino) neighborhoods, and prey on the unbanked poor by taking up to 10% of their income to cash paychecks. Similarly, when minimum wage increases happen, landlords hike up rent. (Relatedly, Desmond explains that while the weight of the evidence indicates that increasing the minimum wage does NOT affect unemployment rates, it is clear that the value of a company’s stock falls, at least temporarily, in response to it raising workers’ wages.)
1) “The United States could effectively end poverty in America tomorrow without increasing the deficit … We just have to stop spending so much on the rich.”
Government assistance in the United States currently prioritizes “the subsidization of affluence over the alleviation of poverty.” The hidden (and primary) welfare state that exists in our country is designed to protect the wealth of the rich, not to foster economic opportunity for the disadvantaged. As Desmond emphasizes, “the biggest beneficiary of federal aid are affluent families.” They benefit from tax breaks, from employer-sponsored health insurance, etc. For example, whereas most Americans pay about 95% of the taxes they owe, the wealthy pay only about 75%, and the wealthy are also taxed on a much smaller proportion of their overall wealth. (This is why the sales tax is so regressive; wealthy people spend a smaller proportion of their income.) More generally, there are many millions of dollars of goverment funds that are supposed to be allocated to assisting the poor that are either misspent (e.g., on fees for “speakers” like Brett Favre) or that are not spent at all. Indeed, some states have enough unspent welfare funds to give each poor child thousands of dollars.
2) “Choice is the antidote for exploitation.”
The non-poor, and especially the rich, exploit the poor by limiting ability to make meaningful choices in the labor, housing, and financial markets (e.g., with non-compete clauses at work, limited geographic access to banks). This drives down poor Americans’ wages and forces them “to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit.” For example, predatory check-cashing companies are concentrated near disadvantaged minority (Black and Latino) neighborhoods, and prey on the unbanked poor by taking up to 10% of their income to cash paychecks. Similarly, when minimum wage increases happen, landlords hike up rent. (Relatedly, Desmond explains that while the weight of the evidence indicates that increasing the minimum wage does NOT affect unemployment rates, it is clear that the value of a company’s stock falls, at least temporarily, in response to it raising workers’ wages.)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 4,847 reviews