Great article! I personally find this a convincing argument for the war on poverty and might even use this data in the future when talking to people. However, I was curious about the conservative opinion that you referenced. You said, "conservatives generally like to think that government action to alleviate poverty is doomed to failure, creates a culture of dependency, etc." and it feels to me that the article does not adequately rebuke this statement. The first statement that it is doomed to failure is obviously subject to different interpretations of the perceived goal of the war on poverty. That is where the "culture of dependency" comes in. I think that many conservatives view the goal of the war on poverty, and possibly even the rest of government, as allowing people to become self-dependant, individualistic, and contribute to society on their own. In that sense, you have not proven that the war on poverty was a success. Adding in the government programs is effective in proving that people are better off, but I think it serves to further support that people are becoming dependant on the government, especially since you show that right next to the stagnant wage growth. What would you say to a conservative that thinks this article only supports their notion that the war on poverty increased dependence on the government? Would you try to convince them that people are not truly more dependant on the government than before the war on poverty? Or would you say that the value system that ranks individualism over well-being should not be followed? Thank you again for the article! very happy that I subscribed!
You are a brave man, Noah. To some people, belief that the economy is and was a disaster is central to their ideology -- and not just the tankies. It;s the same with the belief that poverty is the sole cause of crime.; obvious "facts" that may not be challenged.
The original, stated, objective of the War on Poverty was not to make poverty less unpleasant — that can always be done, at least in the short run, by giving people money. It was to end poverty, to convert the present poor into people who could support themselves at a reasonable level.
That objective has not been achieved. As your graph shows, it was being gradually achieved prior to the start of the War on Poverty. That progress ended at about the point when the War on Poverty got fully staffed and funded. Once the failure became clear, the original objective was abandoned in favor of the one that could be achieved.
Do you really want to argue that creating a permanent welfare class is a success? That, by your description, is what happened.
Don't forget -- that though the passage of social security preceded the War on Poverty -- social security was remarkably effective at eliminating poverty. Before the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, about half of all senior citizens were living in poverty. As of 2018, about 9% of seniors lived in poverty (official rate), the lowest percentage of any age group.
I think youre misunderstanding the conservative argument. Nobody really disputes that welfare raises the income of people who receive welfare. The point of contention is about welfare traps and dependence.
The conservative standard for poverty reduction is self-sufficiency. As reagan said, “We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.”
I think there are two ways to look at this that are both valid. In terms of mitigating material deprivation, the War on Poverty has been a success, but it's important to note that this is a really low bar. By spending 6% of GDP we bought a lot of things for people who couldn't afford to buy them themselves. But was there ever really doubt that this was possible? There was a hole, and we filled it with money.
The higher bar is reducing pre-transfer poverty, and it's not clear that the War on Poverty has had any effect here at all. For the last 55 years, depending on the point in the business cycle, 11-15% of the population has failed to earn enough to get over the poverty line.
Maybe the WoP helped it get down to this level, where it would otherwise be bouncing between 15 and 20%. Maybe it stopped the pre-transfer poverty rate from settling down into the 7-12% range. Maybe it had no effect at all.
But I feel like we were promised more. Wasn't the idea that the War on Poverty would be a permanent solution that would break the cycle of poverty and ultimately reduce market income poverty? Maybe I'm wrong. I wasn't around back then. But I think permanently devoting 6% (and growing!) of GDP to mitigating the failure of 11-15% of the population to provide for themselves is a deeply unsatisfying victory.
I think the very least interesting takeaway here is that when you give people money they have money. The most interesting fact seems to be that when you ignore SNAP, TANF, EITC etc the progress against poverty somehow stopped right around 1970 (because of course that's when it stopped amirite?). So in the same vein as the holy grail of developmental economics is establishing a self-sustaining growth trajectory, if you expected the war on poverty to manifest a downward trend in that baseline poverty rate then you're gonna be disappointed.
After all when we waged war against the Nazis we didn't plan on bombing the Germans 80 years later because of a stubborn baseline rate of Nazis that we can't seem to get below 10% of the German population. And if we did, we probably wouldn't call it a "success". Looking at that 10% poverty baseline is an indication of *some* kind of failure, and whether the war on poverty was *that* failure depends on what we meant by "winning" it. And I honestly don't know. Were we supposed to get to a point where the war on poverty would eventually subside as the baseline poverty rate approached zero?
Tldr so what if that’s what’s happened, it’s not what matters.
What strikes me about this piece is how the paper you are quoting seems to be a classic piece of hacking away until you find the answer you want while your post buries the lede at the end.
What matters to humans is not some dry analysis and re-analysis and optimistic conclusion but how they feel. The stuff you do mention as also being also important at the end is perhaps the most important.
The impact of precaricity and the way one feels relative to others is more important to health, mental health and social cohesion than some dry number is to the people this paper talks about. Humans are adaptable as the success of our species shows and will tolerate almost anything if we believe that’s the status quo, eg phrases like “we’re all in this together” got people to endure rationing for years after the WW2 ended.
Brushing it aside is to my mind the equivalent to accumulating dry tinder in a Californian national park and saying there’s no fire so it’s ok? Sooner or later there’s going to be a lightning strike and everything’s going to burn to the ground?
Great article! I personally find this a convincing argument for the war on poverty and might even use this data in the future when talking to people. However, I was curious about the conservative opinion that you referenced. You said, "conservatives generally like to think that government action to alleviate poverty is doomed to failure, creates a culture of dependency, etc." and it feels to me that the article does not adequately rebuke this statement. The first statement that it is doomed to failure is obviously subject to different interpretations of the perceived goal of the war on poverty. That is where the "culture of dependency" comes in. I think that many conservatives view the goal of the war on poverty, and possibly even the rest of government, as allowing people to become self-dependant, individualistic, and contribute to society on their own. In that sense, you have not proven that the war on poverty was a success. Adding in the government programs is effective in proving that people are better off, but I think it serves to further support that people are becoming dependant on the government, especially since you show that right next to the stagnant wage growth. What would you say to a conservative that thinks this article only supports their notion that the war on poverty increased dependence on the government? Would you try to convince them that people are not truly more dependant on the government than before the war on poverty? Or would you say that the value system that ranks individualism over well-being should not be followed? Thank you again for the article! very happy that I subscribed!
Excellent!! Informative!
You are a brave man, Noah. To some people, belief that the economy is and was a disaster is central to their ideology -- and not just the tankies. It;s the same with the belief that poverty is the sole cause of crime.; obvious "facts" that may not be challenged.
The original, stated, objective of the War on Poverty was not to make poverty less unpleasant — that can always be done, at least in the short run, by giving people money. It was to end poverty, to convert the present poor into people who could support themselves at a reasonable level.
That objective has not been achieved. As your graph shows, it was being gradually achieved prior to the start of the War on Poverty. That progress ended at about the point when the War on Poverty got fully staffed and funded. Once the failure became clear, the original objective was abandoned in favor of the one that could be achieved.
Do you really want to argue that creating a permanent welfare class is a success? That, by your description, is what happened.
Don't forget -- that though the passage of social security preceded the War on Poverty -- social security was remarkably effective at eliminating poverty. Before the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, about half of all senior citizens were living in poverty. As of 2018, about 9% of seniors lived in poverty (official rate), the lowest percentage of any age group.
This is not the first time I've said that Johnson was, by a wide margin, our best post-war president.
I think youre misunderstanding the conservative argument. Nobody really disputes that welfare raises the income of people who receive welfare. The point of contention is about welfare traps and dependence.
The conservative standard for poverty reduction is self-sufficiency. As reagan said, “We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.”
I think there are two ways to look at this that are both valid. In terms of mitigating material deprivation, the War on Poverty has been a success, but it's important to note that this is a really low bar. By spending 6% of GDP we bought a lot of things for people who couldn't afford to buy them themselves. But was there ever really doubt that this was possible? There was a hole, and we filled it with money.
The higher bar is reducing pre-transfer poverty, and it's not clear that the War on Poverty has had any effect here at all. For the last 55 years, depending on the point in the business cycle, 11-15% of the population has failed to earn enough to get over the poverty line.
Maybe the WoP helped it get down to this level, where it would otherwise be bouncing between 15 and 20%. Maybe it stopped the pre-transfer poverty rate from settling down into the 7-12% range. Maybe it had no effect at all.
But I feel like we were promised more. Wasn't the idea that the War on Poverty would be a permanent solution that would break the cycle of poverty and ultimately reduce market income poverty? Maybe I'm wrong. I wasn't around back then. But I think permanently devoting 6% (and growing!) of GDP to mitigating the failure of 11-15% of the population to provide for themselves is a deeply unsatisfying victory.
I think the very least interesting takeaway here is that when you give people money they have money. The most interesting fact seems to be that when you ignore SNAP, TANF, EITC etc the progress against poverty somehow stopped right around 1970 (because of course that's when it stopped amirite?). So in the same vein as the holy grail of developmental economics is establishing a self-sustaining growth trajectory, if you expected the war on poverty to manifest a downward trend in that baseline poverty rate then you're gonna be disappointed.
After all when we waged war against the Nazis we didn't plan on bombing the Germans 80 years later because of a stubborn baseline rate of Nazis that we can't seem to get below 10% of the German population. And if we did, we probably wouldn't call it a "success". Looking at that 10% poverty baseline is an indication of *some* kind of failure, and whether the war on poverty was *that* failure depends on what we meant by "winning" it. And I honestly don't know. Were we supposed to get to a point where the war on poverty would eventually subside as the baseline poverty rate approached zero?
Tldr so what if that’s what’s happened, it’s not what matters.
What strikes me about this piece is how the paper you are quoting seems to be a classic piece of hacking away until you find the answer you want while your post buries the lede at the end.
What matters to humans is not some dry analysis and re-analysis and optimistic conclusion but how they feel. The stuff you do mention as also being also important at the end is perhaps the most important.
The impact of precaricity and the way one feels relative to others is more important to health, mental health and social cohesion than some dry number is to the people this paper talks about. Humans are adaptable as the success of our species shows and will tolerate almost anything if we believe that’s the status quo, eg phrases like “we’re all in this together” got people to endure rationing for years after the WW2 ended.
Brushing it aside is to my mind the equivalent to accumulating dry tinder in a Californian national park and saying there’s no fire so it’s ok? Sooner or later there’s going to be a lightning strike and everything’s going to burn to the ground?