Introduction
The effects of poverty on an individual or society are multidimensional, affecting access to pillars of social protection such as education, employment, and affordable health care. The links between poverty and inequality are so bold that minority communities are often associated with the deprivation of basic life needs and other social amenities. Poverty in the United States cuts across common issues such as family/individual residential status, educational achievement, and occupation. The United States accommodates diverse communities, some of which are minority groups, having the highest populations with unachieved socioeconomic dimensions for basic survival and prosperity.
Whereas the government can offer stimulus and aid to individuals facing acute deprivation on socioeconomic grounds, there should be long-lasting solutions for individual empowerment. The rationale is that social protection may not be sustainable in the long run, even though the assistance only covers the bare minimum regarding needs achievement. Therefore, the proposed solutions of this paper include an increased emphasis on justice and fairness in socioeconomic policy, reformation of the social safety net in terms of inclusivity, and greater education accessibility.
Reasons for Poverty in the USA
Two primary reasons for poverty spread in the US, or any other society, are individual factors like life choices and structural elements defined by the political landscape prevailing in a community. According to Tackie (2021), several scholars provide a diverse cluster of the rationale for socioeconomic deprivation, which is equally applicable to the current quagmire in the United States. While individual factors that contribute to poverty are the easiest to eliminate, solutions are more difficult to implement if the prevailing social structures promote oppression and frustrations with life-altering decisions for escaping depravity (Tackie, 2021).
In other words, groups with structural disadvantages are more likely to achieve below-average quality education or economic benefits from occupational choices. Moreover, disadvantaged individuals suffer more from unattended medical emergencies, school absences, and exposure to delinquent behaviors (Tackie, 2021). Nevertheless, the two-dimensional approach to understanding poverty in the United States suppresses other outstanding issues that are critically significant in addressing government reforms for uplifting low-income individuals, households, and communities.
Poor educational achievement causes poverty in the United States, given the difficulties in getting employment or well-paying jobs without at least a high school diploma. According to Pedace (2004), less-educated and, thus, less-skilled individuals are more exposed to the poverty risk. In turn, Davis and Williams (2020) emphasized the role played by education in poverty eradication, insisting that economic mobility and overall prosperity are achievable through skills immersion and practical application of the learned knowledge in value creation. Davis and Williams (2020) justified the opinion, estimating that improved funding for public education and quality tuition can enhance employability among the structural minorities unable to afford quality learning opportunities. Therefore, the connection between poverty and education in the United States is that anyone on the lower achievement scale engages in below-average occupations whose economic outcomes cannot sustain even the most basic of the individual’s needs.
Health inequality is a reason for poverty in the United States, where those suffering from chronic illnesses and disabilities are unable to give maximum inputs on economic activities for self or family sustenance. Davis and Williams (2020) linked poor health with poverty by detailing that most physical and mental health illnesses affect an individual’s capabilities to sustain employment. Conversely, deep poverty promotes psychological distress likely to result in long-term mental health issues (Davis & Williams, 2020).
Therefore, Davis and William’s (2020) justification for health impacts on poverty growth in the US is that materially deprived individuals with psychological distress onsets adopt externalizing behaviors that exacerbate helplessness. Such individuals are less likely to make life-altering choices for improving their socioeconomic statuses. Therefore, a healthy community sustains a healthy economy, unlike in health inequality scenarios where unaffordability can result in fatalities from non-dead diseases, ridding a family of the breadwinner.
Changing opportunities for employment increases poverty in the United States, especially for populations who cannot access minimum-wage jobs or employee protection packages. The United States private and public sectors run different economic models for determining employment and wage compensations for the respective workforces (Davis & Williams, 2020). In contrast, the government can cushion public sector employees from job losses during economic recessions, while the private sector releases the highest number of Americans who depend on social protection stimuli for survival Tackie (2021).
Tackie (2021) noted that industrial dynamics in the United States are another reason for the shifts in employment opportunities, especially for the manufacturing sectors. Fewer manufacturing jobs in 2020 compared to the 1960s led to higher unemployment rates and increases in poverty (Tackie, 2021). The United States is an industrially diverse economy, implying that those who fail to secure employment in manufacturing should find other slots in the healthcare, hospitality, or education sectors (Tackie, 2021). However, the United States poorly implemented economic fabric with ineffective policies for employment protection cannot achieve industrial flexibilities that accommodate the entire population’s employment needs.
Family composition, especially the single-parent settings, is a significant reason for poverty in the United States. Corinth et al. (2022) observed that deep poverty rates in single-parent households increased between 1995 and 2016. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2022) released comparative data showing that only 7.9% of children in married families lived in poverty, unlike 30.4% from single-parent households. Corinth et al. (2022) observed that, despite the policy-relevant measures for family protection and income inequality eradication, children in single-parent households are more likely to live in poverty than those in married families.
Tackie (2021) explained that family size and composition determine poverty levels, especially if the total income does not match the per-person expenditure thresholds for established poverty indices. The key takeaway from the explanation is that the more breadwinners in a household, the more economic stability for the unit. The observations sufficiently support the recommendations below for eradicating poverty in the United States.
Recommendations for Eradicating Poverty in the USA
Equity for Poverty Reduction
Justice and fairness in socioeconomic policy settings can facilitate poverty reduction in the United States, taking into account the elimination of systemic inequalities. Lakner et al. (2020) observed that inequality is the main reason for poverty, given the socioeconomic barrier for structural minorities and other disadvantaged groups. Therefore, the idea behind equity promotion for poverty reduction is to integrate social diversity in creating solutions for the US population (Lakner et al., 2020).
One of the most remarkable strides in poverty reduction is promoting gender equality through women’s empowerment. The US government should implement frameworks for ensuring women gain equal access to quality education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. Mishra and Mishra (2020) detailed that women’s advancement promotes economic growth by closing the parity index in socioeconomic dimensions and democratic representations for fair and just structural policies. Equality should encompass equitable labor force participation and empowerment-focused policies where individuals from structural minorities gain access to economic opportunities.
Statistical data on equity for poverty reduction corroborates the suggestion that the US government should empower minorities, especially by ensuring gender equality. Mishra and Mishra (2020) detailed that the female-male ratio of educational enrolment before empowerment was 0.972, whereas the ratio rose to 1.073 after empowerment. The statistical data presented by Mishra and Mishra (2020) is valid because the study was conducted across over 30 countries.
Moreover, the study had no biases because the researchers observed equality ratios for developing and developed economies. The strength of Mishra and Mishra’s (2020) study is that it provides a generalizable paradigm for poverty reduction because empowerment for equity promotion can be replicated in other social groups. The study’s limitation is that it covered the short-term impacts of equality promotion. Therefore, future studies should elaborate on the impacts of empowerment on perceived structural majorities, especially if resulting policy frameworks seem to disadvantage the group.
Improving the Social Safety Net
The US government should improve economic stimuli and microfinance facilitation as quick solutions to poverty reduction. Chang and Romich (2021) observed that social programs to provide needs to structural minorities, especially those in low-income brackets, can reduce poverty. However, enforcing a market-oriented antipoverty policy is the most sustainable safety net for eliminating depravity. Chang and Romich (2021) suggested an inclusive approach to generosity programs, such as the US Food Stamp Program and other nutrition-assistance frameworks. The rationale is that social safety nets should safeguard the equitable distribution of public resources by ensuring Americans benefit from the economic justice frameworks (Chang & Romich, 2021). The government must ensure that inclusive social protection systems are sustainable, quick solutions, and short-term for populations transitioning from one job to another.
Inclusion in generosity statistical representation corroborates the suggestions that the US government must focus on promoting equality through social safety programs. Chang and Romich (2021) compiled a comparative study showing changes in beneficiary demographics since the Great Recession. The data showed that improved inclusion in generosity programs promoted socioeconomic stability for disadvantaged populations. The study’s strength is that the authors compiled data over a lengthy period, improving its consistency. Therefore, the data is reliable and void of biases because the authors do not take any sides when presenting statistical social protection facts.
The only limitation is that the study does not incorporate frameworks for promoting social justice against controversial engagement approaches when social workers practice partiality. Therefore, future studies should elaborate on the role of government inclusion frameworks in penalizing corruption and controversial engagements during social protection program rollouts.
Improving Access to Education
The US government should increase funding for public education to ensure that more children from low-income communities gain access to learning institutions. England et al. (2020) observed that education achievement opens up multiple opportunities for Americans to gain competitive slots in the labor markets. Socioeconomic development frameworks emanate from educational achievement, where inclusion is almost unachievable without proper frameworks for ensuring education across all populations (England et al., 2020). England et al. (2020) provided statistical analysis detailing that educational achievement improved US citizen employability from 48% in 1970 to 75% in 2000. Moreover, women’s empowerment reduces segregation in the job market, creating a round economy and a fairly represented labor force (England et al., 2020). Therefore, the modern educational system would require several changes on cultural and institutional levels to support the inclusion trend.
The study’s strongest side is the fact that it used public long-range data gathered over several decades by national agencies. In other words, the choices of data range and available sources ensure the study’s validity and reliability. Apart from that, the study provides a comprehensive statistical report along with a discussion. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the former is free of any bias and polarizing opinions and can be used to draw conclusions separately from the collective’s evaluation. Nevertheless, the study has several limitations in the form of target group choices. For instance, England et al. (2020) considered only full-time employees, excluding self-employed, unemployed, and military workers. In this context, future studies might want to focus on additional poverty indicators and different population categories.
Ethical Outcomes of Poverty Eradication
Poverty eradication through equality has a positive ethical outcome, enhancing fairness and promoting justice for minority populations. According to Schweiger (2019), child poverty reduction promotes a positive ethical outcome on the normative concept of vulnerability protection. The rationale is that poverty is a corrosive factor to population protection against social problems like hunger, disease, and crime, implying that its eradication can solve multiple social issues at once (Schweiger (2019).
However, poverty reduction can also promote a negative ethical outcome where perceived structural majorities experience temporal withdrawal from government attention on social protection. The case can promote paradigm shifts from vulnerability protection on minorities to risk exposure on perceived majorities. Gender equality outcomes may not be achievable if women empowerment frameworks for poverty reduction flourish at the expense of men in the US society.
Conclusion
The most sustainable technique for poverty elimination in the United States is ensuring equitable resource distribution, education, healthcare access, and fair labor standards for economic inclusion. The US poverty rates rise due to family composition characteristics, poor health, and low educational achievement. Therefore, the government should eliminate poverty through equitable empowerment, improved access to education opportunities, and fair social protection resource distribution. Poverty elimination programs should safeguard the vulnerability protection for minorities and perceived majority groups without favoring one over the other.
References
Chang, Y. L., & Romich, J. L. (2021). The US safety net since the Great Recession: Trends and reforms, 2007–2017. Social work, 66(1), 29-37.
Corinth, K., Meyer, B. D., & Wu, D. (2022). The change in poverty from 1995 to 2016 among single parent families. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 112, 345-350. Web.
Davis, R. P., & Williams, W. R. (2020). Bringing psychologists to the fight against deep poverty. American Psychologist, 75(5), 655-667. Web.
England, P., Levine, A., & Mishel, E. (2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(13), 6990-6997. Web.
Lakner, C., Mahler, D., Negre, M., & Prydz, B. (2020). How much does reducing inequality matter for global poverty? Web.
Mishra, P. K., Mishra, S. K., & Sarangi, M. K. (2020). Do women’s advancement and gender parity promote economic growth? Evidence from 30 Asian countries. Millennial Asia, 11(1), 5-26. Web.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2022). Juvenile population characteristics. Web.
Pedace, R. (2004). [Review of the book The Persistence of Poverty in the United States by G. L. Mangun, S. L. Mangun, & A. M. Sum]. Journal of Economic Issues, 38(3), 865-868. Web.
Schweiger, G. (2019). Ethics, poverty and children’s vulnerability. Ethics and social welfare, 13(3), 288-301. Web.
Tackie, D. N. O. (2021). An examination of poverty: Dimensions, causes, and solutions. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 36(2), 2-26. Web.