The Ugly Truth About Job Searching

Part I

Here I am again, looking for a job. I thought by moving to the bay area my chances for employment would increase. I was wrong.

"Work History"

This is probably the most difficult topic to explain. My résumé goes back to 1997, when I first helped out as a teacher's assistant for sign-language in elementary school. I was also the librarian's assistant, using the computer system for: checking out/in books, data entry, typing, etc. I was twelve-years-old.

I was always very helpful in my childhood. My first 'job' was teaching other kids to read as well as I could and to tutor them. I was volunteer of the month twice at my school. I also wanted to draw a comic book and sell my hand-made clay figurines but I never was able to.

Before that, I tried selling my toys, and drawings to the neighbors for $0.05 each. I was a very outgoing child and had a great entrepreneurial spirit.

At 13, I tried to get a job with the local animal shelter but when I entered the facility (it had been closed), there were a bunch of dead deer animal carcases that had to be disposed of, courtesy of animal control and reckless highway drivers. I lost the urge to volunteer with them after that.

In Jr. High, I helped design a math tutoring slide-show using Power Point on Macintosh. The teacher was very impressed and gave me extra credit. Other students were able to use the program to help their skills in math. I was also using a Windows 3.0 and was studying on my own with Microsoft Encarta. Those were the days...

I was writing poetry, drawing graphics on the computer and wanted to start my own graphic design business by making pictures for anyone that needed them. I was handing out flyers to local neighbors until finally I got discouraged by lack of interest and lack of know-how to complete my "start-up" venture. Needless to say, nothing came of it.

In high-school, I baby-sat and did pet-sitting and house-sitting for the neighbors. I got a pretty good sum of money for it and in those days, I had enough to get my first Certificate of Deposit at the bank in my own name (back when interest rates were 5%!!).

The only other job I had to do was get my CA Driver's License (after taking courses at a traffic school), and help take care of my grandparents. I also had a dog then. Besides school, there wasn't much else for me to do in the small town I lived in.

I wasn't encouraged to get a job. My grandmother wanted me to be available to help her and always told me, "We have enough money, you don't need to work!". So I never tried getting a job while in high-school. My grandmother supported me through high-school, having raised me as a child. Then after home-school was, more school. She decided it was best for me to go to community college, since I had been home-schooled and a state college would require advanced math, which I didn't get through home-school (back in those days, there wasn't an algebra test to graduate). Also, she didn't want me leaving town since I had to help take care of her and grandpa and do things for them: errands, hospital trips, emergencies (which there were a lot of), etc.

I vaguely had an idea of going to UC Davis to 'become a veterinarian' which was every girl's dream at the time. The only thing I had to do was finish community college. It turned out to be harder than I thought.

2002 came around. I graduated home-school with honors and was valedictorian. Then came community/junior college with all their rules, red tape regulations and enrollment processes. I almost didn't get in. Which classes do I take and why? So I enrolled in classes I wanted to take, instead of the 'required for graduation' classes. Grandma told me, "Just take what you want. You can do the rest later." That's what I did. For several years.

Community college is supposed to be done in two years, maximum. You aren't supposed to take easy classes unless you're retired or... retarded. I had no idea 'the powers that be' were keeping track of my classes. I had a talk with a counselor who asked me why I hadn't taken required classes and that's when I figured out I had to get something done.

I registered for algebra I (which said I was qualified based on their assessment test), Japanese, Honors, English, Science. I was taking 18 units. Needless to say, I failed algebra I (the teacher told me to drop the class), barely passed English (teacher quit to become an actor in New York), dropped Science (it was too hard because of the advanced algebra required), barely passed Honors (teacher was an ass who told me, "I only added you because I needed to fill seats for my class".), and passed Japanese with flying colors, go figure!

Also... because I was with State Farm and on my grandparent's plan, I was required to take 12 units every semester to get a discount. I never wanted to do this but my grandmother insisted because she didn't want to pay extra money to insure me. So no matter what, I had to sign up for 12 units any way I could. Eventually, I burned out and failed a few classes because of that stipulation.

I didn't think any of this mattered until I tried to get a job as a college orientation leader. Some kid, younger than 18-years-old I think, looked over my 70+ unit transcript with a dubious look and asked immediately why I failed math and astronomy. I explained the situation but he wasn't convinced. I didn't get the job. I think his drunk frat buddy got the job instead, even though I knew way more about the college process than either of them combined.

My 'inexperience' in the job field would come back to haunt me, as I tried to look for other entry-level jobs. In a small town, unless your parents are rich, or you're really popular and have friends who can get you jobs, you don't get hired. This was my problem. My grandparents weren't rich. I didn't have many friends and wasn't popular enough to know important people in high places.

Other kids had part-time jobs in stores, restaurants, etc. Mostly because their parents hired them or their siblings got them the job. On every job application it asks, "Do you have friends or family members currently employed here?" That should be illegal. That is called DISCRIMINATION!

Finally, I got a job working at an animal shelter after volunteering there for several months. That job didn't last long. It was my first job. I knew nothing about time cards, sick-leave, taxes, etc. Sometimes I would finish all my tasks and ask my supervisor, "Can I go now?" And the supervisor, totally caught off guard, would say, "It's not time yet. Sweep or do laundry or something."

Other times I worked past my allotted time in order to finish the job, like for the endless amount of dirty laundry that had to be done. Finally they told me, "We can't pay you over-time. You need to clock out now." In my innocence, I replied, "It's okay, I can do this off the clock." I had no idea that was illegal, that it would conflict with employer insurance, regulations, etc. I stayed only a few months at that job. I just got burned out (plus all the other horrors I witnessed: animals abused, community service workers neglecting their work, etc.). I saw many a Director come and go at that place, so I'm guessing I'm not the only one who suffered burn-out.

Years later, I tried a stint in Thailand to teach English. That didn't work out either. It was a scam. Like most "Teach English Overseas" jobs, they are meant to entrap tourists so they can put out a bunch of cash to these so-called 'degree providers', give them a crappy job, deny them a working visa and pretty much screw them until they have to leave, which is in three months (Passport must be stamped every month by leaving the country and through re-entry). I got the certificate but very little job experience.

After this I realized my life wouldn't change. I enrolled in community college again (seeing that I couldn't enter state college with my limited math and science) and changed majors. With all my theatre experience, it wasn't enough to enter a job field in a small college town surrounded by farms. There were no jobs for actors, or theatre majors. It was time to do something practical. I tried journalism with the same result... nothing. Then broadcasting.

At this time, I found a job at school. Working in the cafeteria was probably the most practical job ever and I wish I had done it sooner. I had seen my other friends work there and knew it paid enough to cover college expenses (after financial aid). It was the longest, highest paying job overall in my life. The only thing I regret was that I didn't get to do the café, smoothie bar or grill, which would've helped me pursue other jobs outside of college. My supervisors and co-workers were great. I only had two incidents of harassment on the job by customers but other than that, it worked for me. But I quit the job to pursue the broadcasting internship.

Broadcasting was interesting in that it allowed me to use my public speaking skills by interviewing people, use my creativity when it came to writing and editing stories, and still be in the spotlight when I read the news story live, on-air. There were some problems with technical issues, politics and internal conflicts but by this time I had worked out another internship at a for-profit radio station.

This other radio station wouldn't have much of the technical issues but still had a lot of politics involved. Turned out, I would lose the job to a younger guy who helped out with sports announcements (I was the news substitute person at $8.00 an hour). I don't even remember signing any "end of employment papers" but they never called me again for the job and I got the idea that I wasn't working there anymore.

After that I focused on volunteering, thinking that eventually it would lead to a paying job. It never happened. Time and time again, I was refused a job because I didn't know the right people or didn't have a husband to get me a job. All the people I volunteered with were retired and didn't have to worry about income and they didn't have any job contacts for me to call.

So I did what every un-employed American does in this country, I went on Craigslist. I found a job as a caregiver, the lowest paying job I ever had (after forced union dues were retroactively taken from my paycheck), I made less than minimum wage. I found out caregivers make around $18,000 a year... compared to most jobs at $27,000+, it's a terrible sum. The only jobs below this are: farming, fishing, and forestry.

Then, seeing that my caregiver job wasn't enough to pay for rent or my bills, I got another job: sign waver a.k.a. a human billboard. This job paid better though for less hours, it still didn't pay much. Less-than-ideal working conditions, harassment on the job, and smoke inhalation/exhaust fumes, made it a not-so-great career move. I knew it was a temporary position since the other guy had quit before me.

It was time for a change of pace. I decided to do freelance and change my interest to: retail and fashion. I tried for a time doing referral services in town for local shops and stores. Due to the terrible economy, many stores were going out of business and my referral service was quickly out of date. I then veered toward the fashion industry and found a nice niche in women's fashion.

It was a job but not a W-2 job, so I didn't make enough to pay taxes on it. In fact, in all of my jobs, I never made enough to pay taxes... ever. According to State of California Franchise Tax Board website: "You have a requirement to file a California Personal Income Tax Return if your Gross Income is $15,702 or more; or your Adjusted Gross Income is $12,562 or more."

Did I make that much, ever? Nope.

"Was your gross income for 2014 $3,950 or more?", asks IRS.gov. (Single-household, non-disabled, etc.)

No, it was not.

I never made either of these amounts in MY ENTIRE LIFE!

My grandparent's money has supported me my entire life. I consider myself lucky and unlucky. It won't last forever though.

Part II

There are some people who've worked since 16-years-old. These are the people who've had to work through high-school and put themselves through college: flipping burgers, dealing with people's trash, and with other crummy low-wage jobs that barely pay the bills.

Some people are lucky enough to marry and become housewives and have children and get money from the government. Some start their own business and make even more money.

Others... others have gotten divorced, have had to fend for themselves, have had to live on the street.

This is what I'm looking at since I may not qualify for welfare, due to the red-tape process and huge waiting list. Even unemployment is tricky business and you need to be very savvy in order to get any benefits.

I don't like the idea of having to do this. We are taught in America that if you work hard, you get paid and you can survive. Unfortunately, the reality is very different and many people have two jobs and are still homeless.

There are many ugly facts that contribute to this. A bad economy, bad working conditions and unfavorable employment opportunities (or non-opportunities) don't give people much to work with. The truth is, it has always been this way. There have always been crappy jobs for those not-so-fortunate people, mainly: immigrants who don't speak English, ex-felons/prisoners, mentally ill, disabled, former foster youth and un-educated, poor people in poor communities.

The only difference is now, people with BA's and MA's are competing for these horrible, low-wage and degrading jobs too. The middle class of America has disappeared and the gap between the poor and the rich is getting bigger.

With such terrible conditions, it's no wonder employers are taking their knives, sharpening them and slicing away at the population (and wages). They have no compunction about deceptive hiring practices, misleading job processes or outright lying. They can fire at will with no reason, say bad things about you when you leave the job and deny you future opportunities for employment. Think I'm making this up? Think again!

Discrimination, sexual harassment, ageism, unfair wages, unsafe working conditions... these are all the things that happen when employers are given free reign over desperate people who need jobs. Since people need the jobs so badly, they will do anything to keep it and not complain, even if it kills them.

In Japan, salary men are lucky to live past 40-years-old due to the stress they suffer under their job. High blood pressure, diabetes, ulcers, cancer and other health problems are common. These are just the salary men who suffer this in Japan. In America, it's much worse for everyone else and we're considered the most developed country on Earth.

"You Are Who You Work For"

The job identity associated with your employment is inescapable and you must be very careful to get the "right" job or you'll be stuck flipping burgers for the rest of your life. The odds of you improving your work "experience" from food service to let's say, hospitality, is zilch.

"You don't have hospitality experience!" a snotty HR associate will chide as they look at your 10-year-curriculum vitae at McDonald's. It doesn't matter if you managed to become Senior Manager and lead a crew of 10+ ever-changing high-school kids, supervise the: cooking, cleaning, orders and deliveries of food while maintaining a healthy environment (and bathroom) for the job. At one dollar above minimum wage, your job doesn't qualify you for any other job other than: Senior Manager at Burger King. That's it.

Forget climbing the social ladder. You can barely make it to dirt level.

Employers see who you've worked for and unless you fudge your C.V. quite a bit, you're not going to improve your career, ever.

"No Entry"

Gatekeeping software is now the ever-popular device of all major employers. Ever fill out an employment form online? Congratulations, you've just made it to the Trash Bin Pile! Software designed by geeky shut-in graduates of Stanford, Harvard or Yale make it even more impossible to apply for jobs. Unless you have keywords like: Analyst, Financial Advisor, Administration, Biotech, Human Resource, Software Engineer... etc., don't expect to make it to the email box of the Human Resources person who's supposed to glance at your résumé. By the way, what's the name of said Human Resource person anyway? Don't know? Too bad for you. You'll never get employed if you don't know their name then.

Employers are also very careful not to give out any information about: themselves, their Human Resource people, their employees, and other employment opportunities for that reason. If you're not "one of them" forget trying to get in. Consider this door permanently shut.

"Are Any Of Your Family Members Or Friends Currently Employed Here?"

This question is meant to eliminate over 90% of job applicants. If you aren't referred by someone on the job personally, then forget applying. Over 50% of hires are made through referrals and that's why you see all: Black, Filipino, Hispanic/Latino, Vietnamese, etc. working in one store. Referrals usually consist of same race, gender, age and socio-economic background.

"The Psychological Test"

Do you feel happy everyday, every single minute of your life? If you answered no to this question, it will affect your employment. Psychological questionnaires in the form of required employment tests ask you such discriminating questions and because they are developed by a third-party company, employers use them without a qualm. [See my other article: Job Hunt Spying Policy]

Even on the job, you are required to smile 24/7: while people are being rude to you, while being groped by your boss, while being groped by customers, while your co-workers are talking crap about you behind your back, while your co-workers are talking crap about you to your face, while you're secretly depressed but can't talk to anyone about it because then you'd lose your job.

See what I mean? What kind of person would be capable of smiling through all this? It's inhuman and inhumane.

"The Credit Score"

You wouldn't think what you buy on your credit card would affect your employment but in this day and age, having a bad credit score looks bad to employers who are allowed to see all your credit history through a "background check" that has nothing to do with your (hopefully non-existent) criminal record.

Had to use your credit card to pay for groceries? Too bad. Did someone steal your credit card and use it to pay for $500+ worth of clothes? Oh well. No job for you.

Employers never disclose the fact that they've looked at your credit report, or didn't hire you based on your credit report. It remains an issue that will never be solved. Even though, technically, you are allowed to view what they view, you never get the chance. Employers can easily side-step this by simply not looking at your application at all. Just because you completed a background check doesn't mean they will actually look at your application, cover letter, references or résumé.

"Make An Effort"

Imagine you need to apply for 20 jobs a day due to unemployment, etc. You need a job by next week. You fill out 120 applications, 120 different cover letters and 120 copies of résumés and references. You get 5 interviews that week. Zero call-backs.

Next week you do the same...

People tell you that you need to make finding a job your "full-time job", "dedicate 6-8 hours a day to get results". You do 10 hours a day with no results. How many jobs applications can you fill out in a day?

You get burned out. No one gets back to you. The one interview you thought went well never gets back to you. You email them and they have an automatic response, "We appreciate your time but unfortunately your qualifications don't match our requirements at this time...".

At this time, they say, as if in the unforeseeable future they may consider you again. You are told that employers are supposed to keep your application on file for six months... it's a lie. Employers don't even remember you the next month you apply for the same job that is mysteriously vacant again. You go through another set of interviews, only to have the same result, nothing. In the end you wonder what it's all for...

As a desperate measure, you apply for jobs below minimum wage, gigs they are called, in hopes that it will lead to something more. You even consider unpaid jobs just to fill your résumé with something other than community college courses.

The gigs are nothing more than a joke. The jobs below minimum wage are exactly that, minimum wage with no room for improvement, promotion or increased wages or hours. The unpaid jobs are only for high-school interns and you are far too old to apply (they try to hide their disgust at you and fail as they go through with their interview, since you have clearly wasted their time), and you are left feeling degraded, useless, worthless and ready to kill yourself.

Welcome to America.

Now put your head to the ground, kiss the sh*t stained sidewalk that will soon be your home until a cop comes around and beats the hell out of you, since this is what it all comes down to in the Land of Opportunity (Poor People Need Not Apply). If you complain it just means you didn't try hard enough and that you are a lazy-good-for-nothing-ungrateful-piece-of-filth-who-should-just-do-the-world-a-favor-to-save-the-tax-payer-money-no-welfare-please-goddamn-kill-yourself-off-now, unemployed person.

"What now?"

There are a surprising amount of jobs available for the lazy-good-for-nothing-ungrateful-piece-of-filth-who-should-just-do-the-world-a-favor-to-save-the-tax-payer-money-no-welfare-please-goddamn-kill-yourself-off-now, unemployed person. Just to name a few are: drug-dealers, prostitution, military... prison. Yes, prison employs a lot of prisoners who must work many hours to pay for their blankets, toothbrushes, phone privileges, and other accoutrements.

The military offers some benefits and assuming you survive the whole gotta-kill-everyone-so-I-don't-get-killed ordeal you get to have PTSD which can put you on disability and unemployment, after you jump through hoops of fire and a battery of assaults by psychologists and medical doctors who secretly just want to make you a drooling zombie and take all the government money they can from you.

It's nice to know there are some jobs in this country after all for others like myself.

* * *

Let’s Talk About Money

I was going over my finances, like I do every few months, and decided to write down all my expenses so far (not counting entertainment, coffee, eating out, etc.). I was trying to figure out how much I could save if I got a better paying job, now that minimum wage in San Francisco is $12.25 an hour.

Turns out, I won't be saving anything after all...

Here are my expenses:

Rent $850/month $10,200/year

Rent in San Francisco is insane and I'm lucky to get a studio (no bath or kitchen) at this price. I got a lease, so I'll see how long that lasts. There is rent control here but it's a tricky situation that has kept many local and state lawyers busy (and well employed).

Health Insurance $285/month $3,420/year

I never needed health insurance, until a disastrous situation put me in a "hospital" against my will. Rather than paying $32,000+ for those bills, my health insurance put out $15,000+ and cut it down to a reasonable amount for me to pay in monthly installments, somewhere around $5,000+.

Not bad... but now I don't think I can afford health insurance anymore. San Francisco has their own health insurance but I don't work here to qualify and I really don't want to be on Medi-Cal because I've heard horror stories about it.

Storage $180/month $2,160/year

Do I really need all that junk in my storage? No. But how do I get rid of it? That's a problem that has plagued me for 3+ years now. Yes, for three years I've been paying storage fees because my family used to live in a four bedroom three bath house and now I'm on my own in a studio with no way to get all my things back to the way it used to be. Not all that stuff is mine, true, but if I were to pack all my stuff: books, books, more books and some furniture... I'd really be crammed in this remodeled hotel room I'm living in now. This is a work in progress.

PG&E $60/month $720/year

Since my last bill so far was $4.44, I have no idea what my next bill will be but I'm basing it off of previous bills I've had with PG&E. Unfortunately, due to much red tape and meaningless "Poverty Levels for a Family of One Household", I don't qualify for PG&E handouts. How much electricity can I use with only a computer, printer, rice cooker, hot water pot and fluorescent lights? I may have to update this later.

YMCA $62/month $744/year

Yes, I belong to the YMCA which is right handy for me. I may not use the gym that much or go to all of the yoga classes but they have an indoor swimming pool, as San Francisco's summer weather reaches a ridiculous high of 70 degrees fahrenheit without fog. They also have clean showers. I live in a studio and shared bath with only three bathrooms on four floors, with over 60+ people sharing them. Figure it out.

AT&T $51.98/month $623.76/year

I am going to cut AT&T even though I've been with them 10+ years. They inform me that I'm on "the cheapest plan" but I'm not convinced. My phone bill is supposed to be $39.99 but they add in all these extras and taxes, including a very shady Administration Fee of $0.61 that was not approved by customers. Needless to say, I could write another article just on how much AT&T rips me off. Now I just have to figure out how to transfer data from a very old flip-phone to my monthly to-go smartphone.

StraightTalk $40/month $480/year

Recently, StraightTalk along with TracPhone was involved in a lovely scam where they "throttled" data speeds, even though customers paid money for Unlimited Data Nationwide. Unfortunately, I missed this FCC claim process because StraightTalk conveniently did not send me a letter, as they were supposed to, informing me that I had a right to a refund.

However, since I had to use my smartphone to get my cheap $850/year lease in San Francisco, I'm willing to forgive them this once and continue to shell out money for their product that I desperately need. So far my data limit is under 3GB, so I should be fine. But I would rather have this phone than pay more money for AT&T. I'm also using Google Voice but we'll see how long that lasts before I have to pay for that too.

Bus/MUNI/BART in San Francisco $83/month $996/year

I get a monthly pass for $83.00 and if my card gets stolen (like it did a few days ago), I get a replacement with all my benefits and money sent to me for just $5.00.

San Francisco is one of the few cities in the United States of America, where you don't need a car. I don't have a car anymore but luckily, I don't need one here. San Francisco has three options for transportation: Bus, MUNI and BART (along with those sketchy: Über, Lyft, etc. rideshares that take money away from city-licensed taxi drivers). I don't ride my bike here (yet) but even walking is possible where I live and as long as I live in San Francisco (hopefully forever), I will never need a car except to rent one when I go out of town [promo plug-in for Enterprise-Rent-A-Car here].

Comcast $54.95/month $659.40/year

Without Comcast Internet, I wouldn't be writing this to you now. Internet has become one of the most important utilities in civilization: more than a phone, TV, radio (or even Gas/Petroleum). Because, without this communication you couldn't: find a place to live, find a job, find your way around town, sell junk you don't need, find unemployment, etc. We should all have free internet in this country with sufficient speeds to adequately complete these daily activities (no streaming movies, etc.). Let me write it again: We should all have free internet in this country with sufficient speeds to adequately complete these daily activities (no streaming movies, etc.).

For the time being though, this monthly cost will be the last thing I cut from my budget and I'd rather cut food for it. I'm using a Wi-Fi to-go plan which may be eliminated soon so I have to use it while I can.

Food $200/month $2,400/year

$40/week × 5 =$200. I'm not sure if this is a strict budget or not. I shop at Safeway and try to get gluten-free products there. Due to my Celiac Disease (it's a disease, not a diet!), I can't have bread, so this significantly changes my whole budget. Gluten-free food is ridiculously expensive. Lucky for me, I like Asian food and can get by with rice but there's only so much you can do before your tastebuds start yelling, "I'm bored! Get me sugar and chocolate!". So yeah... I'll see if I can cut this down without cutting my weight down too.

So... how much is this all costing me, you ask? I'm guessing you're bad at math like I am. Here's the answer:

$1,866.93 a month. $22,403.16 a year.

Seems like a lot, doesn't it?

For one person, I'm sure it is. So given my circumstances (and unemployment situation), I was willing to cut a few things, should my purse become a bit lighter in the future.

Without Health Insurance, AT&T, Storage and YMCA, my expenses would be:

$1,287.95 a month $15,467.16 a year.

(Cutting those expenses I listed would save me: $578.98 a month and $6,936 a year.)

Now, here comes the reality check. If I don't find a job and my situation gets worse, I'll have to make more cuts. Let's call it, the Major Crunch. I want to keep my Bus/MUNI/BART, internet for job and school and smartphone to keep my life going but if worse comes to worse I can live without it, though it would really, really, suck.

Here's the breakdown on Absolute Living Expenses With No Frills Whatsoever:

Rent: $850

PG&E: $60

Food: $200

= $1,110 a month $13,320 a year.

But guess what? It's still ABOVE Poverty Level (one person). In 2015, the new Poverty Level for one person was listed (according to GOOGLE) as: $11,770 a year.

Federal and state wages have yet to match San Francisco's generous minimum wage standard.

In Chico, I made $10.00 an hour MAX. But even with that wage, I never made $11,770 a year. Why, you ask? Was I lazy or unemployed? No. I had two jobs then. The other job paid: $8.70 an hour. Even with these two jobs, I never made that much money -- not even enough to pay my rent of $795 a month.

I didn't have enough hours and the one job that gave me enough hours was cut but was only paying me $8.70 an hour. ($0.70 above Chico's minimum wage, but with forced union dues, I made less than that an hour).

It's a delicate balance between wage and hours worked to make a living. I've counted and re-counted this dozens of times to get a formula table fit to show any economist who dares insist that minimum wage standards are enough to live on.

Let's start with 20 hours, as the basis for part-time work...

20 hours a week.

Here's the breakdown on San Francisco's minimum wage and a part-time job of 20 hours per week.

$12.25/HR × 20 hours a week × 4 times a week (estimated paycheck arrival) = $980 a month.

(This does not include money subtracted for taxes, unemployment, etc.)

That's $11,760 a year.

Guess what? You're making: LESS THAN POVERTY LEVEL! ($11,770 a year)

Forget paying the bills. Forget saving money. Forget going to school (even with financial aid, you have to shell out for books, paper/ink, etc.).

Let's try getting more hours...

$12.25/HR × 25 hours a week × 4 times a week (estimated paycheck arrival) = $1,225 a month.

(This does not include money subtracted for taxes, unemployment, etc.)

$14,700 a year.

All right. Now things look less grim. You can make a living wage and maybe go to school if you have previous savings and are really, really lucky at not having any medical bills or catastrophes to upset this delicate financial balance.

$12.25/HR × 30 hours a week × 4 times a week (estimated paycheck arrival) = $1,470 a month.

(This does not include money subtracted for taxes, unemployment, etc.)

$17,640 a year.

Great. Making a living wage with more money and the increased possibility of making it through school is a step in the right direction! Let's see how long this lasts.

$12.25/HR × 35 hours a week × 4 times a week (estimated paycheck arrival) = $1,715 a month.

(This does not include money subtracted for taxes, unemployment, etc.)

$20,580 a year.

Yay! A proper living wage and United States living standard enough for you to pay your bills, go to school and maybe save for the future.

Oh wait... looks like I forgot something.

This is for a single person living in San Francisco, on "generous" minimum wage, granted an unheard of 35 hours per week without any cuts, excluding taxes and emergencies.

How many people actually make this much? Not many.

Let's do the math with $10.00 an hour, $9.00 an hour and $8.00 an hour...

$10.00/HR × 20 hours a week × 4 times a week (estimated paycheck arrival) = $800 MO. $9,600 YR.

× 25 hours a week × 4 = $1,000 MO.      $12,000 YR.

× 30 hours a week × 4 = $1,200 MO.      $14,400 YR. 

× 35 hours a week × 4 = $1,400 MO.      $16,800 YR.

(This does not include money subtracted for taxes, unemployment, etc.)

$9.00/HR × 20 hours a week × 4 times a week (estimated paycheck arrival) = $720 MO. $8,640 YR

× 25 hours a week × 4 = $900 MO.        $10,800 YR.

× 30 hours a week × 4 = $1,080 MO.     $12,960 YR.

× 35 hours a week × 4 = $1,260 MO.     $15,120 YR.

(This does not include money subtracted for taxes, unemployment, etc.)

$8.00/HR × 20 hours a week × 4 times a week (estimated paycheck arrival) = $640 MO. $7,680 YR

× 25 hours a week × 4 = $800 MO.        $9,600 YR.

× 30 hours a week × 4 = $960 MO.        $11,520 YR.

× 35 hours a week × 4 = $1,120 MO.     $13,440 YR.

(This does not include money subtracted for taxes, unemployment, etc.)

Notice the less you get per hour, the more hours you have to work to escape "Poverty Level". Since the Poverty Level is so unrealistic in this country, it doesn't take into account living standards in today's economy.

Imagine also, if you had a family to support on this income. Many single mothers (even with supposed government benefits) struggle to make ends meet, and they make above poverty level.

I did this to illustrate what money really means in a job. How even $1.00 more an hour can be the difference between living at poverty standards or scraping by at every-day standards.

I may not be an economist but any ordinary person can figure out the Poverty Level system is wrong and needs to be corrected immediately. No rich person can argue this evidence, saying that "we make a decent living" on such pitiful wages. Never mind the fact that employers are cutting wages and hours every which way they can. Even bank tellers have only 20 hours a week... You can find for yourself where they stand on the chart.

Having this information puts my job search in perspective and may hopefully help others bargain for better wages... unless it means getting laid off in your job. It's easier to bargain for more hours than for higher pay but even with more hours, employers will look at cutting you...

(as what happened to me at my other job).

If you dare to ask for living wages, more hours and a better life, you may get punished. But by not asking for this, you are living in a state unfit for our standards today in the United States of America, home to the greatest number of billionaires on the planet.

My financial circumstances mean little compared to the big picture of the economic crisis in America. Plenty of people get by living on the streets, though I'm not sure I'm willing to do that (yet). However, I think when everyone starts having this conversation, we can reach an agreement that there's a lot to be done concerning our budget and financial situation. Deciding what to do about it after, is another question (and a much more lengthy article to write).

For now, I'm still looking for a job. I'm saving my coins in the meantime. If I'm lucky, I'll have enough coins to do laundry next week (It's $6.75 to do laundry every week). Oh no... I forgot to budget for laundry! I guess when times get tough for me, I'll be the smelly person on the bus.

Poverty & Prejudice: Debunking the Common Poverty Myths

Working hard and barely gettin' by,

that's the American way.

Working less and gettin' filthy rich,

that's the American Lie.

-- Emerald A. Behrens

The rich just keep getting richer. So quotes the Forbes article by Kerry A. Dolan and Luisa Kroll in Inside The 2014 Forbes 400: Facts And Figures About America's Wealthiest, after a time of deep recession in modern American history. According to that same article, those rich people saw an increase of their wealth rise $270 billion from 2013 to 2014.

According to the article, Wealth and Inequality written by Sarah Glazer (CQ Researcher), 10 percent of America's wealthiest controlled half of the nation's income in 2012, with foreign tax havens that shelter trillions of dollars.

These new statistics have been compared to the Gilded Age, a time of unprecedented prosperity and great inequality in America. It also raises questions on whether this unanticipated wealth increase comes at the expense of the disappearing middle-class and how it will ripple out to the overall financial situation and joblessness problem in the nation.

As economists and social activists struggle to defend or raise awareness about this issue, what's interesting to note is how the rich perceive themselves in their new lofty height of elite supremacy in America.

Many of those in their gilded, economically advantaged plutocracy see themselves as self-righteous individuals whose family values, upbringing and moral character have helped them realize the American Dream. These people have the justification of their immense wealth as proof of their (some would call it god-given) placement in the societal stratosphere. This elite standing allows them to look down upon the poor, the non-workers, the dependents of society, and reprimand them for their lazy, unskilled and nonproductive ways.

Surely the poor deserve such reprimanding since they are neither productive, as perceived by their lack of wealth, or motivated as perceived by their dependency?

Unfortunately, much to the chagrin of the extremely wealthy these outwardly depreciating views are not only negative and full of bigotry, they're also incorrect.

It is a sad truth that poverty has been around in America since the country was founded yet it's surprising that in this day and age of technological advances and previously unheard of wealth, where trillions of dollars circulate through our economy, there's still the issue of poverty.

As the economic crisis in 2008 and previous decades have shown, when the government suffers from lack of funds, those dependent on the government for their funds, suffer more and oftentimes these security buffers are not enough to alleviate the threat of poverty.

Sasha Abramsky's book, The American Way of Poverty: How the Other Half Still Lives, is a testimony from interviews of the many who suffer on the margins of society, too poor to be counted as below poverty level, some of whom are living in slums of urban cities and in rural colonias (encampments) without running water or electricity.

It's proof that Michael Harrington's illumination of the issue of poverty in 1962 with the book, The Other America, hasn't changed the problem of poverty much.

Many in America still fall under the poverty line, despite having a job. Barbara Ehrenreich's book, Nickel and Dimed follows her own investigative journey behind the scenes of the working poor whose full-time jobs as housekeepers, waitresses, hospice workers and Wal-Mart employees, don't pay enough to keep them out of poverty. Eherenreich writes that most people are trapped in their low-wage jobs, unable to climb the ladder of success due to restrictions of location (such as not having a car, or picking a job close to home). Employees have limited options and have little control over the kinds of jobs they get. One major factor in these jobs which makes a worker so helpless is the loss of self-respect and civil rights, as Ehrenreich cites her experience with purse searching bosses, drug testing, and degrading employment personality tests that asks the employee if they "find it hard to stop moods of self-pity". (59) It is a vicious cycle where low-wage workers suffer more than economic hardship, they suffer social stigma too. It is a "culture of extreme inequality" where the corporate decision makers and bosses look down upon their workers. In the chapter, Evaluation, Ehrenreich points out, "For reasons that have more to do with class--and often racial--prejudice than with actual experience, they tend to fear and distrust the category of people from which they recruit their workers." (212)

These full-time low-wage workers who are not by any means lazy or unskilled are what some would call, the deserving poor, those who deserve an extra hand up through government incentives, tax breaks, or an extension of welfare benefits. As Michael B. Katz describes in his book, The Undeserving Poor: America's Enduring Confrontation With Poverty, "Today they are most often referred to as the working poor and in recent years they have elicited sympathy and support from public programs." (3)

However, there are those considered the undeserving poor, those who supposedly bring poverty unto themselves. These people are viewed as: lazy, possessing questionable morals, having inadequate parental backgrounds: born of single-mothers, non-married or divorced parents, unskilled, or mentally unfit for society.

There has been much talk from conservative and liberal groups on how to deal with these so-called undeserving poor but not many bi-partisan solutions have resulted. Many reforms in the past seeking to eradicate poverty were put in place during Lyndon B. Johnson's time with the War on Poverty crusade that was later criticized by conservatives. In order to put these plans in place it was important to count how many people needed it and how much they needed. Thus a system of counting a poverty level had to be made.

According to the article Framing the Poor by Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner, poverty has historically been measured by income. In 1961, the poverty line was established by multiplying by three the minimum income required for a basic diet. Inflation, changing incomes and other factors have altered this formula, though current formulas are more accurate. (33)

The chart study of the poverty gap used in Framing the Poor, shows that the gap has increased since the 1970's, more than twice since the 1960's in fact. In the authors' words, "The poor have gotten poorer." (35)

With so many more government programs in place to help the poor now, the question of why poverty still exists is a conundrum for major economists. Conservatives (and their rich counter-parts) are eager to answer that global economies have created more competition in job markets along with higher technological careers that require more than a high-school diploma to apply, thus creating an uneven employment field for many Americans. Conservatives are also quick to point out that the government has wasted "Trillions" of dollars in welfare programs designed, as they say, to help the "welfare queens" and "cheaters" of the system.

Robert Rector along with William Lauber, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote a disparaging account of how the government wastes "Trillions" of U.S. taxpayer dollars in, America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty. (Katz 198)

Rector, along with many conservatives, cite the collapse of the marriage culture, the breakdown of the family and other social ills, as contributing to the problem of poverty. Rector was a major player in the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation which required those on welfare to work in order to get their benefits. Another popular target on the cause of poverty in America, as cited by Rector's profile on the Heritage Foundation website, is immigration.

What the Heritage Foundation neglects to mention (as with many other conservatives) is the racial profiling, single-mother blaming and overall bigotry that colors their rhetoric when it comes to their reform measures.

The biggest shame in America in regard to social inequality has been the issue of race and its connection to poverty. With the history of slavery, indentured servitude of women in the early American colonies and harsh treatment of Native Americans, this nation of freedom and liberty for all has hardly lived up to its constitutional promise. Race still plays the biggest role in regard to poverty and its stereotypes in connection to welfare have yet to wear off.

Black welfare queens. Promiscuous women with many children. Single-mothers. Fathers likely in jail or on the street selling drugs. These are all the conceptions of those on the welfare system, particularly people of color. It's no coincidence these ideas have been fostered and enforced by the white elite.

According to Michael B. Katz' chapter, Poverty and the Politics of Liberation, Social Darwinism beginning in the late 1800's became the scientific argument in favor of good breeding stock, as described later in eugenics (29-38), which was the leading vogue of social politics concerning the poor in the 1900's. As the poor, namely immigrants and those of foreign blood were seen as inferior, blacks fit this new role as the undesired race. Under the guise of birth control (and many other supposed illnesses such as hysteria), sterilizations were performed for women deemed mentally ill and unfit to have children.

Many of these were most likely involuntary and Katz writes of one 1920's court case in Virginia where the sterilization order on a woman was challenged but overturned, upholding the statute that allowed sterilization "within the police power of the state... and that it did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment." (37) During World War II, with the knowledge that the German Nazi's supported eugenics to further their agenda of racial superiority, the popularity of eugenics waned. However, involuntary sterilization would remain in America well into the post-world war era, much to the horror of civil rights proponents.

Involuntary sterilization of Black women was a rude awakening to the existing racial hatred that remained after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement. In September 1973, Triple Jeopardy, a magazine published by the Third World Women's Alliance (TWWA) in the 1970's, focused on the plight of black women in the U.S. who were being involuntarily sterilized, based on the legacy of eugenics. (Katz 91)

According to Dorothy Roberts Killing the Black Body, 5,000 black women during the 1930's and 1940's were sterilized under the diagnosis of being mentally deficient in states that still recognized eugenics in their laws. In 1980, cites Roberts, 700,000 sterilizations took place under the form of birth control. She states, "It was a common belief among Blacks in the South that Black women were routinely sterilized without their informed consent and for no valid reasons." Government reimbursement to surgeons under Medicaid acted as financial incentives to perform such unnecessary surgeries, even though these had a "greater risk of killing the patient". (Katz 91-92)

Little has changed since then regarding the belief that Black women are the major recipients of welfare and that they have too many children, as conservatives are always pointing out as the epidemic of single-motherhood and the curse of dysfunctional families (mainly blacks and immigrants) are to blame for America's poverty crisis.

It's largely ignored by the conservative rich finger pointers that many welfare, single-mothers are white, particularly those in the mid-west, south, and Appalachia region.

Location also defines a person's poverty level, from upbringing to schooling and employment, where you live determines how poor you are. In Stephen J. Scanlan's paper, "Mined" for Its Citizens? Poverty, Opportunity Structure, and Appalachian Soldier Deaths in the Iraq War, Scanlan uses a spatial inequality framework on poverty and connects it to research on the military and society. Drawing sources from websites that lists the casualties of the Iraq War, Scanlan gathered information about the soldiers' hometown and found a disproportionate number of them from Appalachia, noting also the employment opportunities there and how it may have affected military recruitment.

Some of the most startling findings include facts that, "The hometowns of Appalachian soldiers dying in Iraq have poverty rates nearly 30 percent higher than the rest of the country." (55) As a poor region, employment would be lower, as well as educational opportunity.

Most people looking for better conditions would have to move to another area (if they could afford to do so), or look for existing work that may not pay a living wage. In a region such as Appalachia, where mining and manufacturing may be the only jobs available, there is limited opportunity for anything else and these jobs are considered high-risk when it comes to health and livelihood for families.

Also, according to Scanlan, these jobs have not increased wages or reduced unemployment or poverty. Retails jobs that are available, don't pay enough and are not prevalent enough for the citizenry to escape the poverty of the area. As a result, the citizens are being "mined" by the military and with limited opportunity for employment or education, a career in the Army, Marines or Navy is seen as an attractive alternative to poverty, especially with promises of GI benefits including a paid ticket to college. However, many of these recruits never live to see these promised benefits and as proven by the results, a disproportionate number have died overseas, as stated, "Appalachia has a higher rate of soldier deaths from the Iraq War than the United States as a whole...". (56)

Education as a way out of poverty and as a path to employment is the most sought after goal. For those who can afford it, a degree is a ticket to higher pay and better employment. For those who can't afford it, there is financial aid and Affirmative Action, which remains disputed. But what if getting an education is not the ticket to better employment? What happens when education fails in its goal for employment?

Barbara Ehrenreich visits this new hard truth in uncertain economic times (before the downturn of 2008), to see what happens to people who have Master's Degrees and still can't find a job in her second book dealing with poverty and inequality, Bait and Switch The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream.

Ehrenreich puts herself in the middle of a white-collar job search, along with those who have finished college, started families, saved for retirement and have done everything right, except for being fired. For these people who've never been on welfare, never exhibited "laziness" and have done an "above and beyond" job, it's a harsh reality of economic uncertainty when the job you've sacrificed your life for betrays you. In the Conclusion, Ehrenreich states that many CEO's profited from firing their employees. "...by eliminating other people's jobs, top management can raise its own income." (224) In the end, these former employees have to start all over and it's a tough climb back to the top again, some never make it but must content themselves with low-wage jobs that may not be temporary. Ehrenreich states this new trend in her chapter, Downward Mobility, where many have found "survival jobs" and although no longer unemployed, their new job has no chance of upward mobility. "...in a society where worth is measured entirely by income and position, downward mobility carries a sense of failure, rejection and shame."(210) For those who've spent over twenty years in a white-collar job, entering the new job market as an "older person" brings shocking revelations of discrimination and existing ageism in our society.

As Ehrenreich finds out, she can't even find a job. After going through job coaches, job fairs, job make-overs, job seminars and even Christian job searches, it's surprising that a person with a Ph.D. and background in writing can't land a descent employment spot.

For those recent graduates entering the job field, competition is high and most rural towns where these students hail from suffer the condition of "brain drain" (Scanlan 46), where higher-employment jobs in other cities or even other states, lure those with higher-education to other locations.

Those who do graduate with higher-education degrees find themselves entrenched in student loans, with thousands of dollars in debt increased with any medical bills and previous debt they suffer from. Even finding a full-time job after graduation is a herculean task and many stick with part-time jobs that can't pay off their debt.

This reality goes against rich conservatives who say all you need is a good education and a good job to reach the middle class and if you're lucky reach the very wealthy top. Ron Haskins, former White House advisor to Republican President George W. Bush, published his book Creating an Opportunity Society (2009) with Isabel Sawhill, which was covered by Sarah Glazer who wrote in the CQ Researcher that, "Haskins stresses the role of personal responsibility. In 2009, he analyzed census data to see how adult Americans were doing if they followed three norms of modern society: finish high school, get a full-time job, and wait until age 21 to get married before having children. Young adults who followed all three had only a 2 percent chance of winding up in poverty and a 74 percent chance of reaching the middle class, he found." (Glazer 344)

Of which young adults who followed this formula isn't clearly stated, nor are the statistics he uses to back this claim up. It's hard to know how Haskins analyzed the census data to find his claim out but there isn't always a right way to analyze data as economists stills struggle with how to calculate poverty and there are many ways of reading statistics.

In Kip Hagopian and Lee E. Ohanian's paper The Mismeasure of Inequality, the authors find other studies reporting about income inequality misleading and their paper seeks to correct these issues using the Gini coefficient (also Gini index). They state the Gini coefficient is the most common methodology used in measuring income inequality, where "The figure of merit for the Gini coefficient for income inequality ranges from zero to I.0, where zero represents total equality (all persons have identical incomes) and I.0 represents total inequality (one person has all of the income)." (4) The authors compare the Gini coefficient to other European nations and contest that better measures of living standards are not income, but consumption.

Although, according to Julie A. Litchfield's article, "Inequality: Methods and Tools." (1999) published on the World Bank website, whose mission is to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity, the Gini coefficient is the most commonly used measure of inequality but it varies when the distribution varies. The Poverty Analysis page, Measuring Inequality, states, "If a society is most concerned about the share of income of the people at the bottom, a better indicator may be a direct measure... ." (http://go.worldbank.org/3SLYUTVY00) The Gini coefficient has been criticized by some as misleading and too easy to oversimplify.

It is curious that Hagopian and Ohanian include "income from underground economy" as part of the lower-income household. It does not specify what kind of underground economy provides an income along with bartering.

Although the authors quote that "46 million Americans live below the official federal poverty line" they stress that they have "a somewhat higher standard of living than is commonly believed", quoting another report from a 2009 American Housing Survey showing that poor households: own a home, have air conditioning, a color TV, a refrigerator, stove and oven, a car or truck, microwave oven, DVD or VCR, satellite connection and dishwasher. (11)

The authors stress they are not making light of the poor but that poor by their definition needs to be redefined. Though they state that there isn't a clear consensus among economists about why inequality in the U.S. is higher than other industrialized countries, they present their own findings about what makes people poor and incomes suffer. "Differences in individual ability and preference (defined as capacity and desire to earn), age, globalization... [and] the substantial influx of low-skilled, low-income immigration into the U.S. workforce over the past 30 years." (12-13) While they argue that what makes incomes greater is, greater economic freedom, lower aggregate taxes, less stringent regulation, entrepreneurship, and technology.

Since Kip Hagopian and Lee E. Ohanian are from the conservative right (citing sources from the Heritage Foundation and where Ohanian is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution), they support anti-tax measures against the rich, saying that they disagree that public policy should address the issue of inequality through income distribution. The usual argument is that billionaires such as Sam Walton (Wal-Mart) and others have contributed much to the economy and growth of America. They claim that enacting policies based on "value judgements" is counterproductive and that even a small increase in taxes ("taxes on capital income") would bring down labor productivity, wages and living standards. Instead of trying to tax the rich, the authors claim, it is more important to fix a broken K-12 education system. (18-19)

It is interesting to note in the paper how many times the argument shifts from taxes to educational values which are seen to be broken and how immigrants and those who are unskilled and have no "desire to earn" are to blame for income disparity. The rich are not to blame, for in a Capitalist society, earning a billion dollars a year is a sign of success, not a crime. Yet it's curious to see how reluctant the rich are to share their earnings, having contempt for those who don't make nearly enough as they do, and how they support many reports and studies that show how the poor aren't really that poor. They put much money into conservative think-tanks, private schools and Republican parties that share they same "family values" and anti-government spending "fiscal conservative" ideas they do, raising an alarm to any hint of tax increase or unfriendly business environments with government regulations and oversight. If being rich isn't a crime in this country, why are the rich people so reluctant to share the wealth or have any government oversight? Perhaps it is because the means by which the rich get rich, isn't all that family value friendly after all.

Forbes magazine article, John Paulson Pays A High Price For His Adventure in South African Gold, written in 2014 by Tim Treadgold, shows the ugly side of Capitalism in America and those that profit from the suffering of others. Paulson, a billionaire fund manager of Paulson & Co. is described by Treadgold as, "a man who played the sub-prime crash of 2007 to perfection, making billions of dollars for himself and clients of his fund-management business, Paulson & Co." (Forbes.com)

While many lost their homes and were thrown into poverty, people like Paulson made more money, billions of dollars, at the poorer people's expense. Banks were given government bail-outs and a hidden world of corruption was unveiled within banks, where bank employees were given commissions for every loan they signed a customer onto, whether or not that customer could afford to pay off that loan. Many people years later are still suffering from the effects of that horrible scandal, which happened because government oversight was lifted and banks were given free reign over the loans they controlled.

But Paulson's scandal doesn't end there as Treadgold goes on to describe how the billionaire botched his gold investment in South Africa, a region of destitute people, where horrendous working conditions exist alongside the history of apartheid. The company which Paulson has a stake in, AngloGold Ashanti, was accused of human rights violations in the scope of $2.1 billion dollars by Council on Ethics, The Government Pension Fund Global, in a report to the Ministry of Finance in June 2012, "due to an unacceptable risk that the company’s operations may cause severe environmental damage and contributes to serious or systematic human rights violations." (http://www.regjeringen.no)

The Council on Ethics was established by Royal Decree [Norway] 19 November 2004 and provides an evaluation of whether investments in specified companies are inconsistent with the ethical guidelines. It is also of particular note that this council has strict measures of ethical responsibility and has a List of Excluded Companies that are excluded from the Government Pension Fund's investment universe. Companies that "violate fundamental humanitarian principles", conduct "sales of weapons and military equipment to Burma", "Manufacture tobacco" and conduct "Behavior that is considered to involve contributing to grossly unethical conduct" are listed. Under that last section, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (31 May 2006) is listed along with companies committing malfeasance: Boeing Co. (Production of nuclear weapons), Phillip Morris Cr AS., and Phillip Morris International Inc. (Production of tobacco).

Such ethical violations are not always present with multi-billion dollar companies, their CEO's and their investors but it's a problem that the country of Norway has seen fit to address and raises the question of whether the United States of America should also have a list of companies that violate human rights and ethical standards, and whether more regulation is necessary.

Those that push for more regulation argue that companies need to be responsible for the harm they do and mitigate the damage, either with harsh fines, imprisonment of CEO's who knowingly commit these crimes or with a complete shutdown of the companies. For those whose interests rely on the corporate powers for profit, where corporate entities enjoy the same rights as an individual before the law, they argue that punishing the corporations goes against the American ideals of freedom, prosperity and Capitalism.

However, in a country that values Capitalism, prosperity and freedom, it remains to be seen who gets to realize these ideals and who doesn't, namely the poor who are left out of the political process altogether. Those living on the margins can't even vote, because they posses neither a living residence, drivers license (mandatory to have in order to vote in some states), or means to vote by transportation or time off work. How can they be expected to change a system so throughly built against them?

As Katz notes in The Undeserving Poor, "poverty is, in part, a problem of power." (135) It is hard to feel empowered when you struggle to make ends meet, when you're working all hours of the day and night to provide for your family and are still not able feed them, when you've lost your home and have nowhere to go, when you're living on the streets and people look down upon you. Being poor is disempowering and it's hard for an individual or their family to feel as though they can make a difference when they've lost every form of security and support they had relied on.

Many public programs have been put in place as a security buffer for those less fortunate in hard times but many have been taken off the agenda due to budget cuts.

In Sasha Abramsky's chapter The Wrong Side of the Tracks (135-136), during 2012, states were allowed to mandate men and women, claiming unemployment insurance while applying for jobs, to take a drug test in order to access their insurance benefits. Many families seeking to be considered for welfare must pass a series of applications, tests and forms proving by their income and tax level that they deserve help and must go through red-tape bureaucratic measures by city, county, state and federal assistance programs.

Abramsky notes with sarcasm that banks rarely have to go through such red-tape in order to get their bailouts from the government, that people who rely on Medicare and Social Security are not required to piss in a cup, and that conservatives against welfare use much of the so-called Socialist handouts such as Veteran Administration benefits, Medicare and Social Security.

Yes, there are people who cheat the system (just as the banks and billionaires cheated America) but denying help to the many because of a small number of unlawful individuals is both cruel and demeaning. This rhetoric of punishing the poor assumes that all poor people are vagrants looking for hand-outs, yet this is what is commonly heard on most conservative news talk shows, funded by the billionaires who own them, and even in common platform debates with Democrats and Republicans. The sad truth is, what the media says about the poor can affect government action.

Framing the Poor by Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner, shows a correlation to how the media perceives poverty versus what the government does about it. Starting with the 1960's when the War on Poverty was put into action through 2008, when the economy took a drastic hit, Rose and Baumgartner follow newspaper stories, presenting statistical models concerning aspects of poverty, government action and spending and conclude that, "The portrayal of the poor as either deserving or lazy drives public policy." (22)

America's optimism and prosperity after World War II, drove the idea that hard work was all one needed to succeed and that all opportunities were available to those who applied themselves to task. Even women were included, as images of Rosie the Riveter brought a new image of can-do attitude for women who found a somewhat broader field of employment available then.

But poverty still loomed in the background of all this celebration with Michael Harrington's book, The Other America, which showed that millions of people suffered and were left out of the so-called optimism of the day. In those times, the poor were to be pitied, to be brought up from their lowly level to an acceptable living standard. They were seen as unwilling victims, not participants in their own misery but as sufferers from external conditions of which they had no control over. Public sympathy overflowed then and the government responded with the War on Poverty. 

Turbulent times however changed this mindset, along with the Vietnam War and thousands of returning wounded veterans, to a more conservative and discriminating view of poor people. The poor became the undeserving lot, those who for too long drained the prosperous economy of America, and became the unwanted population with their breeding and propagation of loose morals and kin. Terms such as, "lazy", "dysfunctional", "dependent" and the ever-popular "welfare queen" were the new descriptions of the poor. The poor became a separate race (in more ways than one with regard to racial discrimination) and were not worthy of the middle-class America that was seen as the ultimate picture of conformity with the suburban house, family wagon filled with 2.5 children and dog. Government views followed suit and began to limit assistance and proceeded to re-vamp former welfare measures, such as the welfare reform of 1996. 

The stereotypes of poverty and its causes are still misrepresented today in the media but a surprising group of educated people lending their own conclusions as to what causes poverty has raised the question of whether poverty is in our genes. As Katz points out "neuroscience and epigenetics have fostered the emergence of a new version of poverty as a result of individual biology." (Katz 269) 

For Kids, Self-Control Factors Into Future Success (NPR), explains a study showing that self-control in childhood can make the difference between getting a good job or going to jail in adulthood. Nancy Shute, host of Morning Edition, interviewed Professor Terrie Moffitt of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University, who studied 1,000 young people since birth, and published her study of childhood self-control in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The transcript shows the dialogue between the host and interviewee.

SHUTE: Social scientists say three things matter for success in life: I.Q. family socio-economic status, and self-control. Only one of those things is easy to change, and it's self-control.

Katz debunked the myth that I.Q. matters, noting that race is often a comparison to such tests, including skewed scientific statistics easily manipulated by those with conservative agendas. (Katz 35)

SHUTE: But the children who struggled with self-control had problems as young adults.

Prof. MOFFITT: We found that they were more likely to have a criminal conviction record.

SHUTE: They were also more likely to be poor or to be single parents.

Prof. MOFFITT: And finally, we found that the children with low self-control had great difficulty in their 30s with financial planning.

SHUTE: That means they were more likely to be in debt, have bad credit or have declared [sic] bankruptcy.

Moffitt and Shute's discussion of these problems: single-motherhood, bad financial planning, drug-use, criminal convictions and poverty, as a result of childhood self-control issues puts too much blame on the child and on the parent who must oversee their child's actions to make sure they don't end up a single-mother, on drugs, who spends too much and as a result, becomes poor and in jail. The correlation between a child's self-control and their future adult decision making skills seems a bit contrived, as if a child's destiny were pre-ordained by the choices they made at four-years-old.

What isn't discussed in the interview is how Professor Moffitt reaches her conclusion through a supposed thirty-year-study of these children. But similar studies have been conducted with very little changes in the result and also very little proof that what a child does at four-years-old can affect their living situation at thirty-years-old.

The study, Self-Control And Impulsivity In Children: Multiple Behavioral Measures (Forzano, L. B., et al.), meant to measure impulsivity, self-control and gratification delay in children with a barrage of tests concerning food, is mainly a self-serving test showing no conclusive evidence that the behavior shown by the children at the time leads to bad behavior later in adult life or that these children suffered from the listed consequence of impulsivity such as: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), substance abuse, borderline personality disorder and impulse-control disorders such as gambling.

In a previous test by Reynolds and Stark in 1986, 132 children in grades 4-6 were "divided into two groups based on teacher referrals (the referred children were said to lack self-control and behave impulsively)." (Forzano, L. B., et al. 427) This already sets the test up with children perceived as having impulse control problems, rather than doing a blind study which would be more fair. Basically the test consists of an adult presenting a marshmallow to a kid, telling them if they wait a number of minutes and not eat the marshmallow while the adult is gone, they'll get more marshmallows later. A similar test was done with non-humans. Gender, age and time-wait correlation were compared but again, no conclusive results could be made to predict impulsivity in these children or that it would lead to crime, only the conclusion that self-control is greatest in humans, lower in rats, and lowest in pigeons. Given more options and actual control children could have more self-control. It ends with the phrase, "Again, each of these explanations warrants further research." (442)

If it sounds like a re-hash of the eugenics myth, it probably is.

Trying to predict the occurrence of crime committing individuals among children is a strangely Orwellian task and one that hints of the Nazi experiments during WWII when they tried to prove scientifically that Jews were inferior to Germans (Katz 38). Having a pre-ordained prescription for failure and one that is a precursor to poverty is unsettling in the scientific realm which should put more use of its monies to solving the problem of real poverty in America.

What makes a person commit crime is a complicated question, often times though it's tied to poverty and the circumstance by which they live. Looking at the prison systems in this country can tell you a lot about poverty. There are more prisons in this country than colleges or universities.

Sasha Abramsky writes that, "In fact, in most states, it costs about as much money to keep someone in prison for one year as it would cost to send that person to an Ivy League university." (241)

The overcrowding situation in the many prisons we have leads to non-violent incarcerated individuals being let out onto the street when there's no more room for them.

According to Abramsky, America has quintupled its incarcerated population since the early 1970's... and [sic] houses far more nonviolent inmates than any other country on earth... ." (241)

Those former prisoners are left with no job, no housing and no means of changing the situation, other than going to a shelter or living on the street. Many homeless are former incarcerated people who have found it hard to re-enter the society that put them behind bars. 

Abramsky quotes the 2012 Department of Justice finding that, "a spell behind bars can reduce a person's future earnings by 40 percent." (241)

Also, a disproportionate number of incarcerated people are black and hispanic/latino people which puts an added disadvantage on those looking for work based on discrimination and installs a deep sense of mistrust in those former prisoners who know the government system is out to get them, which makes it harder for them to ask for assistance from welfare or other programs.

Discrimination against black and hispanic/latino people is a sad factor of today's poverty, as quoted by Sasha Abramsky in The Nation, "a disproportionate share of the nation’s poor are African-American and Latino. More than a quarter of blacks and Latinos live below the government-defined poverty line (about $11,000 per year for an individual, $23,000 for a family of four), compared with 12 percent of Asian-Americans and slightly less than 10 percent of whites." (12)

These injustices have sparked the uprising of the 99% also known as The Occupy Wall Street protesters, who are still protesting inequality in both income and prejudice in America's streets. But as the media spin has so often shown, what's out of sight is out of mind for most policy makers who are controlling the shots and the conversation has drifted to other subjects, mainly that of the ongoing wars overseas. 

With today's limited economy, marginal job-improvement number and engrossment in the many wars overseas, it remains to be seen how much an issue (or priority) poverty is in the current state of affairs.

President Obama's Address to the United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations General Assembly Hall in New York City, on September 24th, 2014, stated:

America is committed to a development agenda that eradicates extreme poverty by 2030. We will do our part to help people feed themselves, power their economies, and care for their sick. If the world acts together, we can make sure that all of our children enjoy lives of opportunity and dignity.

It's a promising speech and one that holds a lot of optimism for the future but like all public statements, it's a vague and limited framework for government action. If America, the country of greatest prosperity and opportunity in the world, cannot provide for its own citizens in regard to basic living standards of food, shelter and security, how can our country be an example of prosperity and policy to others?

There's still a long way to go before the problems of poverty can be solved but the prejudice against poor people which remains today is a sad reminder of how little we've come to realizing the American Dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for all our people.

* * *

Works Cited

Abramsky, Sasha. "The Other America 2012. (Cover Story)." Nation 294.20 (2012): 11-18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

Abramsky, Sasha. The American Way of Poverty: How the Other Half Still Lives. New York: Nation, 2013. Print.

The Council on Ethics. Recommendation to exclude AngloGold Ashanti Limited from the investment universe of the Government Pension Fund Global. Oslo, Norway. 3-29. Web. 22. Oct. 2014.

Dolan, Kerry A., and Luisa Kroll. "Inside The 2014 Forbes 400: Facts And Figures About America's Wealthiest." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed. N.p.: Henry Holt, 2001. Print.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. Bait and Switch: The (futile) Pursuit of the American Dream. New York: Metropolitan, 2005. Print.

For Kids, Self-Control Factors into Future Success. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio, 2011. ProQuest. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Forzano, L. B., et al. "Self-Control And Impulsivity In Children: Multiple Behavioral Measures." Psychological Record 61.3 (2011): 425-448. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.

Glazer, Sarah. "Wealth and Inequality." CQ Researcher 18 Apr. 2014: 337-60. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

Hagopian, Kip, and Lee E. Ohanian. "The Mismeasure Of Inequality." Policy Review 174 (2012): 3-19. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

Katz, Michael B. The Undeserving Poor: America's Enduring Confrontation with Poverty. Second ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.

Larkin, James. Personal interview. 28. Oct. 2014.

Litchfield, Julie A. "Inequality: Methods and Tools." (1999) The World Bank Group. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. .

"Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. .

Rose, Max, and Frank R. Baumgartner. "Framing The Poor: Media Coverage And U.S. Poverty Policy, 1960-2008." Policy Studies Journal 41.1 (2013): 22-53. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

Scanlan, Stephen J. "Mined" For Its Citizens? Poverty, Opportunity Structure, And Appalachian Soldier Deaths In The Iraq War." Journal Of Appalachian Studies 20.1 (2014): 43-67. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.

Treadgold, Tim. "John Paulson Pays A High Price For His Adventure in South African Gold." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2014. .

* * *

Author’s Note:

This was a school paper I did at Diablo Valley College for English. My topic was poverty and over the course of this assignment I learned a lot which enforced my belief that poverty in this country (USA is counted as one of the richest countries in the world), is morally, financially and inexcusably wrong. 

Any errors in this writing are mine… except for the stupid formatting that isn’t my fault but rather the result of blogger’s inept pasting method.