Working poor

The working poor are working on poverty lines . Depending on how one defines ” working ” and ” poverty ,” someone may or may not be counted as part of the working poor.

While poverty is often associated with joblessness, a significant proportion of the poor are actually employed. [1] [2] [1] [1] [2] [1] [1] [2 ] References Related terms [3]

The official working poverty rate in the US has somewhat static over the past four decades, but many social scientists argue that the official rate is too low, and that the proportion of workers facing significant financial hardship has increased over the years. Changes in the economy, especially the shift from a manufacturing-based to a service-based economy , have resulted in the polarization of the labor market . This is the second most important job in the world. [4]

There is a wide range of anti-poverty policies that have been shown to improve the situation of the working poor. Research suggests that increasing welfare state generosity is the most effective way to reduce poverty and working poverty. [5] [6] Other tools available to governments are increasing minimum wages across a nation, and absorbing educational and health care costs for children of the working poor.

Conceptualizing working poverty

In the United States, the issue of working poverty was initially brought to the public’s attention during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s). Progressive Era thinkers like Robert Hunter , Jane Addams , and WEB Du Boissaw society’s unequal opportunity structure as the root cause of poverty and working poverty, but they also saw a link between moral factors and poverty. In his study of Philadelphia’s African American neighborhoods, WEB Du Bois draws a distinction between “hardworking” poor people who fail to escape poverty due to racial discrimination and those who are poor due to moral deficiencies such as laziness or lack of perseverance. [7]

After the Great Depression , the New Deal , and World War II , the United States experienced an era of prosperity during which most workers experienced significant gains in wages and working conditions. During this period (1930s-1950s), scholars shifted their attention away from poverty and working poverty. However, in the late 1950s and early 1960s American scholars and policymakers began to revisit the problem. Influential books like John Kenneth Galbraith ‘s The Affluent Society (1958) [8] and Michael Harrington ‘ s The Other America (1962) [9] reinvigorated the discussions on poverty and working poverty in the United States.

Since the start of the War on Poverty in the 1960s, scholars and policymakers on both ends of the political spectrum have paid an increasing amount of attention to working poverty. One of the key ongoing debates concerning the distinction between the work and the nonworking (unemployed) poor. Conservative scholars tend to see nonworking poverty as a more urgent problem than working poverty because they believe that non-work is a moral hazard that leads to welfare dependency and laziness, even work, even poorly paid work, is morally beneficial. In order to solve the problem of nonworking poverty, some conservative scholars argue that the government must stop “coddling” the poor with welfare like AFDC / TANF . [10]

On the other hand, liberal scholars and policymakers often argue that most working and nonworking poor people are quite similar. Studies comparing single mothers on and off welfare shows that receiving welfare payments does not degrade a person’s desire to find a job and get off of welfare. [11] The main difference between the work and the nonworking poor, they argue, is that the nonworking poor have a more difficult time overcoming basic barriers to entry into the labor market, Or arranging for transportation to and from work. In order to help the nonworking poor gain entry into the labor market, liberal scholars and policymakers argue that the government should provide more housing assistance, childcare, And other kinds of aid to poor families. [12]

Discussions about the alleviation of working poverty are also politically charged. Conservative scholars and policymakers often attribute the prevalence of inequality and working poverty to overregulation and overtaxation, which they claim constricts job growth. In order to lower the rate of working poverty, conservative advocate reduction welfare benefits and enacting less stringent labor laws. [10] [13] On the other hand, many liberals argue that working poverty can only be increased, not decreased, government intervention. This government intervention could include workplace reforms (such as housing, food, childcare, and healthcare subsidies).

Measuring working poverty

Absolute

According to the US Department of Labor , the working poor, who have spent at least 27 weeks [in the past year] . ” [1] In other words, the US Department of Labor would classify them as “working poor.” In other words, if someone spent more than half of the past year in the labor force (Note: The official poverty threshold, qui est set by the US Census Bureau, varies DEPENDING on the size of a family and the age of the family members The. US Bureau of Labor Statistics Calculates working poverty rates for all working Individuals, all families With at least one worker, And all “unrelated individuals.” The individual-level working poverty rate calculates the percentage of all workers whose incomes fall below the poverty threshold. In 2009, the individual-level working poverty rate in the US was 7%, compared to 4.7% in 2000. The family-level. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ definition of family-level working poverty, a family is a family of their size. In 2009, the family-level working poverty rate in the US was 7.9%, compared to 5.6% in 2000. Finally, the unrelated individual working poverty rate measures working with those who do not currently live with any family members.

Relative

In Europe and other non-US, high-income countries, poverty and working poverty are defined in relative terms. A relative measure of poverty is based on a country’s income distribution rather than an absolute amount of money. Eurostat , the statistical office of the European Union , classified as a household income of 60 per cent of the country’s median household income. According to Eurostat, a relative measure of poverty is appropriate because “minimal acceptable norms”. [15]

When conducting cross-national research on poverty, scholars tend to use a relative measure of poverty. In these studies, to be classified as “working poor,” a household must satisfy the following two conditions: 1) at least one member of the household must be “working” (which can be defined in various ways) Total household income must be less than 60% (or 50%, or 40%) of the median income for that country. [5] [6] Brady, Fullerton, and Cross’s 2010 cross-national study on working poverty in high-income countries 50% of the median income for that country. According to this relative definition, the US ‘ S working poverty rate was 11% in the year 2000, nearly double the rate produced by the US government’s absolute definition. For the same year, Canada’s working poverty rate was 7.8%, the UK was 4%, and Germany’s was 3.8%. [6]

Prevalence and trends

Poverty rates by gender and work for Americans aged 65 and over

Poverty is often associated with joblessness, but a large proportion of poor people are either working or looking for work. In 2009, according to the US Census Bureau’s official definition of poverty, 8.8 million families were below the poverty line (11.1% of all families). Of these families, 5.19 million, or 58.9%, had at least one person who was classified as working. In the same year, there were 11.7 million unrelated individuals (22% of all unrelated individuals). 3.9 million of these poor people, or 33%, were part of the working poor. [1] [2] [1] [1] [2 [2 [2 [2] The family of the family, According to the US Department of Agriculture. That’s up nearly 40% – or more than $ 60,000 – from 10 years ago. Just one year of spending on a child can cost up to $ 13,830 in 2010, compared to $ 9,860 a decade ago.

Using the US Census Bureau’s definition of poverty, the working poverty rate Seems To-have Remained Relatively steady since 1978. [1] HOWEVER, Many scholars-have argued que le official poverty threshold is too low, and That real wages and working conditions-have Actually Declined For many workers over the past three or decades. Social scientists like Arne Kalleberg -have found que la decline in US manufacturing and the subsequent polarization of the labor market HAS led to an overall Worsening of wages, job stability, and working conditions for people with lower skill levels and less formal education. From the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, manufacturing jobs offer many low-skilled and stable skilled workers, well-paying jobs. Due to global competition, technological advances, And other factors, US manufacturing jobs have been disappearing for decades. (From 1970 to 2008, the percentage of the labor forces employed in the manufacturing sector shrank from 23.4% to 9.1%. [16] [17] ) During this period of decline, job growth est devenu polarized we Either end of the labor market. Jobs in low-skilled jobs, high-skilling jobs, low-skilled jobs, low-skilled jobs, low-skilled jobs. Therefore, many low-to-medium-skilled workers who would have to be able to work in the sector in 1970 should now take low-paying, precarious jobs in the service sector. [4] 4% to 9.1%. [16] [17] During this period of decline, job growth became polarized on either end of the labor market. Jobs in low-skilled jobs, high-skilling jobs, low-skilled jobs, low-skilled jobs, low-skilled jobs. Therefore, many low-to-medium-skilled workers who would have to be able to work in the sector in 1970 should now take low-paying, precarious jobs in the service sector. [4] 4% to 9.1%. [16] [17] During this period of decline, job growth became polarized on either end of the labor market. Jobs in low-skilled jobs, high-skilling jobs, low-skilled jobs, low-skilled jobs, low-skilled jobs. Therefore, many low-to-medium-skilled workers who would have to be able to work in the sector in 1970 should now take low-paying, precarious jobs in the service sector. [4] Many low-to-medium-skilled workers who would have been able to work in the manufacturing sector in 1970 should now take low-paying, precarious jobs in the service sector. [4] Many low-to-medium-skilled workers who would have been able to work in the manufacturing sector in 1970 should now take low-paying, precarious jobs in the service sector. [4]

US compared to Europe

Other high-income countries have also experienced declining manufacturing sectors over the past four decades, polarization as the United States. Labor market polarization has been the most severe in liberal market economies like the US, Britain, and Australia. Countries like Denmark and France-have-been subject to the Saami economic Pressures, goal due to Their more “inclusive” (or “egalitarian”) labor market institutions, Such As centralized and collective solidaristic bargaining and minimum strong wage laws, They Have Experienced less polarization . [4]

Cross-national studies have found that European countries’ working poverty rates are much lower than the US’s. Most of this difference can be explained by the fact that the European countries’ welfare states are more generous than the US’s. [5] [6] The relationship between generous welfare states and low rates of working poverty is elaborated upon in the “Risk Factors” and “Anti-Poverty Policies” sections.

Brady, Fullerton, and Cross (2010) to show the working poverty rates for a small sample of countries. Brady, Fullerton, and Cross (2010) accessed this data through the Luxembourg Income Study . This graph measures household, rather than person-level, poverty rates. A household is coded as “poor” if its income is less than 50% of its country’s median income. This is a relative, rather than absolute, measure of poverty. A household is classified as “working” if at least one member of the household was employed at the time of the survey. The most important insight contained in this graph is that the US has strikingly higher rates than European countries.

 

Risk factors

There are five major categories of risk factors that increase the likelihood of experiencing poverty: sectoral factors, demographic factors, economic factors, labor market institutions, and welfare generosity. Working poverty is a phenomenon that affects a very wide range of people, but there are some employment sectors, demographic groups, political factors, and economic factors. Sectoral and demographic factors help explain why certain people within a given country are more likely to be working poor. Political and economic factors can explain why different countries have different working poverty rates.

Sectoral tendencies
Working poverty is not equally distributed among employment sectors. The service sector has the highest rate of working poverty. In fact, 13.3% of US service sector workers found themselves below the poverty line in 2009. [1] Examples of low-wage service sector workers include fast-food workers, home health aids, waiters / waitresses, and retail workers.

Although the service sector has the highest rate of working poverty, it has a high proportion of workers in agriculture, and construction industries. Most of the time, we have been working on the quality of our products. Nowadays, many US manufacturing jobs are located in right-to-work states , where it is almost impossible for workers to form a union. This means that manufacturing employers are able to pay lower wages and offer fewer benefits than they used to.

Demographic factors
In her book, No Shame in My Game , Katherine Newman finds That “[t] he nation’s young, ict single parents, the poorly educated, and minorities are More Likely than other workers to be poor” (p. 42). [18] These factors, in addition to being part of a large household, being part of a single-earner household, being female, and having a part-time job Poverty “risk factors.” Immigrant workers and self-employed workers are also more likely to be working with other kinds of workers. [5] [6]

Economic Factors and
Economic Growth. However, the evidence suggests that economic growth is not only beneficial to the population. For example, the 1980s was a period of economic growth and prosperity in the United States, but most of the economic gains were concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. This means that people who are not in the labor market do not have the opportunity to make a profit. In fact, many have argued that low-skilled workers experienced declining prosperity in the 1980s. [19] Therefore, changing economic conditions do not have as much of an impact as possible.

Labor market institutions
Labor markets can be egalitarian, efficient, or somewhere in the middle. According to Brady, Fullerton and Cross (2010), “[e] fficient labor markets typically feature flexibility, low unemployment, and higher economic growth, and facilitate the rapid hiring and firing of workers. Institutions, higher wages, and greater security “(p562). The United States has an efficient labor market, but most European countries have egalitarian labor markets. Each system has its drawbacks, but the equality of labor market model is typically associated with lower rates of working poverty. One tradeoff to this is that the “lowest skilled and least employable” people are sometimes excluded from an egalitarian labor market, And should instead rely on government aid in order to survive (p.563). [6] If the United States switched from an efficient to an egalitarian labor market, it might have to increase its welfare state in order to cope with a higher unemployment rate.

Centralized wage bargaining is a key component of egalitarian labor markets. In a country with centralized wage bargaining institutions, wages for all industries are negotiated at the regional or national level. This means that, in the case of a worker, Lohmann (2009) finds that countries with centralized wage bargaining institutions have lower rates of “pre-transfer” working poverty. [5] The “pre-transfer” is the percentage of workers who fall below the poverty threshold based on their earned wages (not counting government transfers ).

Welfare state generosity Welfare state is
the most important factor affecting the welfare state. A generous welfare state spends a higher proportion of its GDP on things like unemployment insurance, social security, family assistance, childcare subsidies, healthcare subsidies, housing subsidies, transportation subsidies, and food subsidies. Studies on working poverty have found that these kinds of government spending can pull a significant number of people out of poverty, even if they earn low wages. Lohmann’s 2009 study shows that welfare state generosity has a significant impact on the “post-transfer” rate of working poverty. [5] The “post-transfer”

Different types of transfers. Family benefits will benefit households and their families. Transfers such as old-age benefits are unlikely to offer low-wage households unless the elderly are living in the same household. Sometimes, even when they are available, those who qualify do not take advantage of them. Migrants in particular are less likely to take advantage of the available benefits. [5]

Obstacles to uplift

The working poor face many of the same struggles as the nonworking poor, but they also face some unique obstacles. Some studies, many of them qualitative , provide detailed insights into the obstacles that hinder workers’ ability to find jobs, keep jobs, and make ends meet. Some of the most common struggles in the workplace are: basic housing, arranging childcare, having workpersons, juggling two or more jobs, and coping with low-status work.

Housing
Working poor people who do not have friends or relatives with whom they can live often find themselves unable to rent an apartment of their own. Although the working poor are employed at least some of the time, they often find it difficult to save money for a rental property. As a result, many working poor people end up in living situations that are actually more costly than a month-to-month rental. For instance, many working poor people, especially those who are in some kind of transitional phase, rent rooms in week-to-week motels. These motel rooms tend to cost a lot more than a traditional rental, but they are affordable because they have a large deposit. If someone is unable or unwilling to pay for a room in a motel, they might live in his / her car, in a homeless shelter, Or on the street. This is not a marginal phenomenon; In fact, according to the 2008 US Conference of Mayors, one in five homeless people are currently employed. [20]

Of course, some working people are able to afford housing subsidies (such as a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher ) to help cover their housing expenses. However, this is not the case. In fact, less than 25% of people who qualify for a housing subsidy receive one. [12]

Education
The issue with education starts with a lot of income. Children’s up-to-date information on children and their families. In many cases the low income community is filled with schooling and solidarity education. [21] This follows students as they continue in education. In many cases this can be done for children. The grades and credits are not in many cases, and the lack of guidance in the schools leaves the children of the working poor with no degree. Also, The lack of funds for continuing education causes these children to fall behind. In many cases, their parents did not continue on to higher education and because of the difficulty of finding a job. Today, a college degree is required for many jobs, and it is the low skill jobs that usually require a high school degree or GED. The inequality in available education continues the vicious cycle of families entering into the working poor.

Transportation
Given the fact that many people do not have the ability to work, and vice versa. [3] Given the fact that public transportation in many cities is sparse, expensive, or non-existent, this is a particularly salient obstacle. Some working people are able to use their social networks-if they have them to meet their transportation needs. In a study on low-income single mothers, Edin and Lein found that single mothers who had someone to drive them to and from work were much more likely to be able to support themselves without relying on government aid. [11]

Basic necessities
Like the unemployed poor, the working poor struggle to pay for basic necessities like food, clothing, housing, and transportation. In some cases, however, the working poor’s basic expenses may be higher than the unemployed poor’s. For instance, the working poor may have to pay more for the unemployed because they have to buy clothes or uniforms for their jobs. [3] Also, because the working poor are spending much of their time at work, they may not have the time to prepare their own food. In this case, they can often resort to eating fast food , which is less expensive than home-prepared food. [3]

Childcare
Working parents with young children, especially single parents, Often, childcare costs can exceed a low-wage earners’ income, making work, especially in a job with no potential for advancement, economically illogical activity. [11] [12] However, some single parents are able to rely on their social networks to provide free or low-cost childcare. [11] There are also some free childcare options provided by the government, such as the Head Start Program . However, the US “average” may be used for late-night shifts. $ 600.00 per month. This is a full-time, full-time, full-time, full-time, This is a $ 100.00 per month, $ 100.00 per month ($ 972 a month), $ 100.00 per month in major metro areas, and falls less than $ 350 in rural areas.The average cost of center-based daycare in the United States is $ 11,666 per year From $ 3,582 to $ 18,773 a year ($ 300 to $ 1,564 monthly), according to the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). [22] ($ 300 to $ 1,564 monthly), according to the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). [22] ($ 300 to $ 1,564 monthly), according to the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). [22]

Work schedules
Many low-wage jobs force workers to accept irregular schedules. In fact, some employers will not hire anyone unless they have “open availability,” which means being available to work any time, any day. [3] This makes it difficult for workers to arrange for childcare and to take on a second job. In addition, working poor people’s working hours can fluctuate wildly from one week to the next, making it difficult for them to budget effectively and save up money. [3]

Multiple jobs
Many low-wage workers have to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. In 1996, 6.2 percent of the workforce held two or more full-time or part-time jobs. Most of these people have two jobs, one job, one job, one job, one job and one job. [23] This can be physically exhausting and can often lead to short and long-term health problems. [3]

Low-Status Work
Many low-wage service sector jobs require a great deal of customer service work. Although not all customer service jobs are low-wage or low-status, [24] many of them are. Some argue who? ] That the low status nature of some jobs may have negative psychological effects on workers, [3] but others argue that low status workers come up with coping mechanisms that allow them to maintain a strong sense of self-worth. [18] [25] One of these coping mechanisms is called boundary work . Boundary work happens when one group of people valorize their own social position by comparing themselves to another group, which they perceive to be inferior in some way. For example, Newman (1999) found that fast food workers in New York City cope with the low-status nature of their job by comparing themselves to the unemployed, which they perceive to be even lower-status than themselves. [26] Thus, although the low-status nature of working poor people’s jobs may have some negative psychological effects, some, but probably not all, of these negative effects can be counteracted through coping mechanisms such as boundary work.

Anti-poverty policies

Scholars, policymakers, and others have come up with a variety of proposals for how to reduce or eliminate working poverty. United States, United States, United States. The remainder of the section outlines the most commonly proposed solutions.

Welfare state generosity

Cross-national studies like Lohmann (2009) and Brady, Fullerton, and Cross (2010) Clearly show That countries with generous welfare states -have lower levels of working poverty than countries with less-generous welfare states, Even When factors like demography, economic performance , And labor market institutions are taken into account. Having a generous welfare state has two key things to reduce working poverty: it raises the minimum level of wages that people are willing to accept, and it pulls a large portion of low-wage workers out of poverty by providing them with an array of cash And non-cash government benefits. [5] Many think that increasing the United States’ welfare state would lower the working poverty rate. A common critic of this proposal is that a generous welfare state would not work because it would stagnate the economy, raise unemployment, and degrade people’s work ethic. [10] However, as 2011 , most European countries have a lower unemployment rate than the US. Moreover, although Western European economies’ growth rates can be lower than the US, they tend to to fluctuate relatively severely. Individual states: financial assistance for child care, but the aid varies widely. Most assistance is administered through the Child Care and Development Block Grants. Check here to find the contact information for your state. Many subsidies have strict income guidelines for families with children under 13 (the age limit is often extended if the child has a disability). Many subsidies allow home-based care, but only accept a day care center, so check the requirements. If you want to use an authorized provider, ask if they can put you in touch with an agency that can help you find one.

Some states distribute funds through social or health departments or agencies (like this one in Washington State). For example, the Children’s Cabinet in Nevada can refer families to providers, help them apply for subsidies and even help families who want to pay a relative for care. North Carolina’s Smart Start is a public / private partnership that provides funding for child care. Check the National Women’s Law Center for each state’s child care assistance policy. [27]

Wages and benefits

In the conclusion of her book, Nickel and Dimed (2001), Barbara Ehrenreich argues that Americans need to pressure employers to improve worker compensation. [3] Generally speaking, this implies a need to strengthen the labor movement . Interestingly, cross-national statistical studies on working poverty. The labor movements in various countries have accomplished this through political parties of their own parties or strategic alliances with non-labor parties, for instance, when striving to put a meaningful minimum wage in place. The federal government offers a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that’s administered through workplaces.

If you are a FSA member, you may be eligible to apply for a FSA (FSA) Dependent Care Account (FSA). FSA, the family limit is $ 5,000 – but you can get as much as $ 2,000 in tax savings if your combined contributions reach the maximum. [28]

Education and training

Some argue who? ] That more vocational training , especially in growth industries like healthcare and renewable energy , is the solution to working poverty. To be sure, wider availability of vocational training could pull some people out of working poverty, but the fact remains that the low-wage service sector is a rapidly growing part of the US economy. Even if more nursing and clean energy jobs were added to the economy, there would still be a lot of workforce in low-wage service sector jobs like retail, food service, and cleaning. Therefore, it should be clear that the population of service sector workers.

Child support assurance

Given the fact that such a large proportion of working poor households are headed by a single mother, one way to reduce working poverty would be to make sure that children’s fathers share the cost of child rearing. In cases Where the father can not Provide child support, scholars like Irwin Garfinkel advocate for the implementation of a child carrier guarantee, whereby the government countries childcare costs if the father can not. Child support is not always available. For example, if the parent is not working, then the parent is not allowed to work with the child. . Also,

Marriage

Households with two wage-earners have a low-wage-earner. Also, households with two adults, but only one wage-earner. Therefore, it seems clear that having two adults in a household, especially if there are children present, is more likely to keep a household out of poverty than having just one adult in a household. Many scholars and policymakers have used this fact to argue that incentives to get married and stay married are an effective way to reduce working poverty and poverty in general. However, this is easier said than done. Research has shown that low-income people are more likely to be married, Which is often a prerequisite for marriage. [29] Therefore, unless the employment opportunity structure is improved, simply increasing the number of marriages among low-income people would be unlikely to lower working poverty rates.

Ultimately, effective solutions to working poverty are multifaceted. Each of the aforementioned proposals could help reduce the poverty in the United States, but they could simultaneously be pursued simultaneously.

See also

  • precariat
  • Income inequality
  • Wage slavery
  • Moonlight clan
  • Wage
  • Family wage
  • Living wage
  • Employment discrimination
  • Wage theft
  • Social inequality
  • Maximum wage
  • Guaranteed minimum income
  • Entitlement
  • Welfare
  • Wages and salaries
  • Income Distribution
  • List of countries by average wage
  • Employment-to-population ratio
  • List of countries by employment rate
  • List of OECD countries
  • List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

Notes and references

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “A Profile of the Working Poor, 2009” (PDF) . US Department of Labor . Retrieved 2011-10-20 .
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b DeNavas-Walt, Carla; Bernadette D. Proctor; Jessica C. Smith. “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009” (PDF) . US Census Bureau . Retrieved 14 December 2011 .
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j Ehrenreich, Barbara (2001). Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America . New York: Holt Paperbacks. ISBN  0-8050-8838-5 .
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Kalleberg, Arne (2011). Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States . New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN  0-87154-431-8 .
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Lohmann, Henning (2009). “Welfare States, Labor Market Institutions and the Working Poor: A Comparative Analysis of European Countries” . European Sociological Review . 25 (4): 489-504. Doi : 10.1093 / esr / jcn064 . Retrieved 5 November2011 .
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Brady, David; Andrew Fullerton; Jennifer Moren Cross (2010). “More Than Just Nickels and Dimes: A Cross-National Analysis of Working Poverty in Affluent Democracies” (PDF) . Social Problems . 57 (4): 559-585. PMID  20976971 . Doi : 10.1525 / sp.2010.57.4.559 . Retrieved 5 November 2011 .
  7. Jump up^ Du Bois, WEB (1899). The Philadelphia Negro . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN  0-8122-1573-7 .
  8. Jump up^ Galbraith, John Kenneth (2008) [1958]. The Affluent Society . New York: Houghton-Mifflin . ISBN  0-395-92500-2 .
  9. Jump up^ Harrington, Michael (1962) [1997]. The Other America: Poverty in the United States . New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN  0-684-82678-X .
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b c Murray, Charles (1984). Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980 . New York: Basic Books. ISBN  0-465-04233-3 .
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Edin, Katherine; Laura Lein (1997). “Work, Welfare, and Single Mothers’ Economic Survival Strategies”. American Journal of Sociology . 62 (2): 253-266. JSTOR  2657303 . Doi : 10.2307 / 2657303 .
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b c from Souza Briggs, Xavier; Popkin, Susan J .; Goering, John (2010). Moving to Opportunity . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN  0-19-539371-6 .
  13. Jump up^ Mead, Lawrence (1986). Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship . New York: Free Press. ISBN  0-7432-2495-7 .
  14. Jump up^ US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “A Profile of the Working Poor, 2000” . US Department of Labor.
  15. Jump up^ European Working Conditions Observatory. “Income Poverty in the European Union” . Eurostat.
  16. Jump up^ International Labor Organization. “Laborsta Internet”. ILO Department of Statistics.
  17. Jump up^ Lee, Marlene; Mark Mather (2008). “US Labor Force Trends”(PDF) . Population Reference Bureau.
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b Newman, Katherine (2000). No Shame in My Game . Vintage Books. ISBN  0-375-70379-9 .
  19. Jump up^ Blank, Rebecca (1991). “Why Were Poverty Rates So High in the 1980s?” (PDF) . NBER Working Paper No.3878 .
  20. Jump up^ US Conference of Mayors. “2008 Status Report on Hunger & Homelessness” (PDF) . Retrieved 22 November 2011 .
  21. Jump up^ Fulton, David. 2000. “Teach the Children: Who Decides.” New York Times (September 19): A19.
  22. Jump up^ “How much you’ll spend on childcare . “Www.babycenter.com . Retrieved 8 November 2016 .
  23. Jump up^ Stinson, John (March 1997). “New Data on Multiple Jobholding Available from the CPS” (PDF) . Monthly Labor Review . Retrieved 22 November 2011 .
  24. Jump up^ Sherman, Rachel (2007). Class Acts: Luxury hotels and inns . Berkeley, California: UC Press. ISBN  0-520-24782-5 .
  25. Jump up^ Lamont, Michèle (2000). The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN  0-674-00306-3 .
  26. Jump up^ Small, Mario Luis; Katherine Newman (2001). “Urban Poverty after the Truly Disadvantaged: The Rediscovery of the Family, the Neighborhood, and Culture”. Annual Review of Sociology . 27 : 23-45. JSTOR  2678613 . Doi : 10.1146 / annurev.soc.27.1.23 .
  27. Jump up^ “7 Sources to Help Pay for Child Care” . Care.com . Retrieved 8 November 2016 .
  28. Jump up^ “7 Sources to Help Pay for Child Care” . Care.com . Retrieved 8 November 2016 .
  29. Jump up^ Wilson, William Julius (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ISBN  0-226-90131-9 .

Start a Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *