In our lecture on Poverty and Place, we discussed implications for family life in conditions of rural, urban, and suburban poverty. Of these, suburban poverty was noted as the newest historical phenomenon, and rates of suburban poverty have increased noticeably in recent years. Please click here to read an article from The Nation about trends, causes, and implications of suburban poverty.
How does the information in this report challenge our notion of the geographical distribution of poverty and affluence? How do you make sense of this information in light of our previous discussion of the outmigration of the middle class from the cities to the suburbs? How are trends in suburban poverty perpetuated by the continued progress of the wealthiest Americans and the increasing inequality that this phenomenon creates? What are the implications for class and family life for suburban families who are not members of the middle or upper classes? Dreier calls for a restructuring of public policy to address the relatively new challenges presented by suburban poverty. What kinds of changes are necessary to address these, and how might they best be implemented?
16 comments:
The statistics on the number and proportion of poor living in the suburbs is extremely surprising to me. I would have never thought that in 2000, it was 39.5 percent. The suburbs was a place where everyone wanted to move to obtain the American Dream. Moving to the suburbs meant that you had more money and that you were living good and comfortably. The information in the report was surprising to me only because you don’t hear many people talking about poverty in the suburbs. You hear people talking about poverty in the rural and urban areas but rarely the suburbs. The information in the report challenges our notion of the geographical distribution and affluence differently now because now that I know the statistics to poverty in the suburbs, it makes more sense to me in where the remaining percentages were. The suburbs were the last place for me to think there was such a huge percentage missing.
In a way this information does not really make sense to me because people who moved to the suburbs from the city had to have more money to move there. There can be a plethora of reasons why the poverty line has increased since the 1950s. Families take out loans for college and other necessities that sometimes they are not able to pay back with other bills like mortgage and other big bills that have to be paid monthly. These situations can be extremely overwhelming and frustrating to families and they become in poverty. The reports discusses how the poor in the suburbs are not scattered all over. They are all in inner-ring suburbs that are close to cities. I think that is why most people think the suburbs has a low percentage of poor individuals.
There are and were a plethora of wealthy people that grew up in the suburbs. Many people think that only people with money live in the suburbs but it is evident that they do not because there are poor people who live in these areas as well. I do not think that people pay too much attention to the poverty in the suburbs because the attention is always on people that actually have money and live well. The implications for class and family life that are not in the middle and upper class are very hard. Most of these families are in debt and can not pay monthly bills on time. Their children do not go to very good schools and they are less likely to get very good grades in class. These families also do not have as many advantages as the middle and upper class families. The changes that should be addressed about the new challenges presented in the suburbs are to first establish that there is a problem. After the problems have been established then the government can create organizations to help the people in poverty become financially stable.
The information in this report challenges our of the geographical distribution of poverty and influence because when we think of poverty, we think that it usually occurs in cities. This article show us how poverty is rapidly increasing in the suburbs. In the article it states that only 20.5% of poor people live in the surburbs and by the 2000 that number had increased to 35.9% (Dreier, 2004). The outmigration of the middle class from the city to the surburs is an easier move for people who are trying to move from the city to the rural. It would cost more money for a family to move to a rural area and they would have to commute longer distances from the home to their work place. If a family were to move to just a surburban area, transportation is provided and it will be a shorter commute. The progress of the wealthy make it difficult for the poor to live in the surburbs because according to the article they "exclude poor households by zoning out apartments and requiring minimum-lot sizes for large, single-family homes" (Derier, 2). For example if a poor family was living in a rather wealthy neighboorhood, if other wealthy people in the neighborhood sell their house for a large amount of money it will raise the prices around this poor family to which they may not be able to afford, forcing them to move out. Some changes that could be implmented are to make "snob zoning illegal which would allow some poor families to stay in their houses.
The report presented some very interesting information about the number of poor Americans that live in the suburbs – 13.8 million. This number is astonishing because it is almost as much as the poor that live in the inner cities. This challenges our notion of the geographic distribution of poverty because we have learned that middle class Americans moved out of inner cities to the suburbs, while poor or lower class Americans remained in inner cities and other poor areas. The report stated that poor families were able to move to the middle class through a voucher system, but they were still not able to find adequate jobs and were forced to again take low-income work. In middle class suburbia, the Americans that live there more than likely have health insurance, do not require health care that supports Medicaid, and also do not require frequent public transportation. The implications for families that are not members of the middle or upper classes is that they may be living in a better community, but still remain to have restrictions because of their socioeconomic status. In order for a positive change to occur in suburban poverty, the policy that provides low-income families with vouchers to move to suburban communities also need to be sure that these communities are adequately equipped with the provisions that low income families need to survive. This all begins with an improvement in the job market.
The report presented some very interesting information about the number of poor Americans that live in the suburbs – 13.8 million. This number is astonishing because it is almost as much as the poor that live in the inner cities. This challenges our notion of the geographic distribution of poverty because we have learned that middle class Americans moved out of inner cities to the suburbs, while poor or lower class Americans remained in inner cities and other poor areas. The report stated that poor families were able to move to the middle class through a voucher system, but they were still not able to find adequate jobs and were forced to again take low-income work. In middle class suburbia, the Americans that live there more than likely have health insurance, do not require health care that supports Medicaid, and also do not require frequent public transportation. The implications for families that are not members of the middle or upper classes is that they may be living in a better community, but still remain to have restrictions because of their socioeconomic status. In order for a positive change to occur in suburban poverty, the policy that provides low-income families with vouchers to move to suburban communities also need to be sure that these communities are adequately equipped with the provisions that low income families need to survive. This all begins with an improvement in the job market.
In the response to 213, I too was surprised to learn that the suburbs acquire about the 13.8 million poor families, which is close to poor inner city families. When most people think of poor neighborhoods or poor families, inner city families’ fall under this categorize. There needs to be new outlook of poverty in America because this big a problem. This article was written in 2004, six years ago. Today with a bad economic and the recessions, I know this number could only have increased; with a delusion image of poverty affect mostly the inner city families. Further, America can't ensure its leading place in the global economy unless we grapple with the problems and opportunities of suburbs poverty. Nonprofits, long focused on inner cities, need to reach out to poor families and immigrants in the suburbs. The federal government should support the production and preservation of affordable housing for families that are having difficulties in maintains their house. Even more important, Washington needs to recognize that suburban as the new look of poverty and provide policy programs for low-income families with vouchers for food, transportations, etc. programs that are being used for poor inner-families should also be implemented to suburbs. Overall, the mental line between city and suburb no longer makes much sense; policies need to treat metropolitan areas as a whole. Washington should support regional clusters for high-tech industries and other sectors. Such clusters foster innovation and economic growth, and they don't gather neatly in one municipality or another.
I like the others above me was surprised by the large number of poor living in the suburbs. These numbers challenges the idea that poverty is a rural and inner city problem. The suburbs have always been seen as the place where the American Dream lives on; that you have been successful and can live comfortably.
As more people have moved out of the cities and into the suburbs the more money they have had to spend. Families have to take out loans and mortgages to pay for their house, then more loans for children's schools, until they have no money left and are in debt. Also, unlike the cities, there can be limited public transportation or services available for families struggling to make ends meet.
The trend in suburban poverty continues because of wealthy suburban families who are able to upgrade to a larger house, larger car, making the necessities around the suburban poor more expensive. It is expensive to live in Montgomery County, Maryland (I think) because of all the wealthy families who live in areas like Potomac or Bethesda, making prices rise for families living in less affluent areas of the county.
The way to address the increasing gap between the wealthy and poor families of the suburbs is by brining the services that low-income families in the inner cities have into the suburbs. Also, by bringing the jobs that were once in the suburbs back, these families will have access to higher paying jobs.
Growing up in a middle class suburban area, I immediately took interest and severe concern to the facts being presented in this article. Last year alone 1.3 million people fell below the poverty line; this statistic became very apparent to me as I moved home last summer. My neighborhood development sits about 20 minutes outside the borders of Washington D.C. My parents moved there when they were both 30 years of age and have fortunately been able to hold down the dwelling well into their later years for my sake. However, upon moving home I realized a long time neighbor of ours had to pack up and move. The article speaks of the economic times at hand, and the turmoils many suburban families are suffering as a result. My neighbors are the exact example used in order to represent the recession at hand, and how suburban families are an extremely unrepresented and unacknowledged group amongst those acting out for people in need (progress reform). The problem with American, middle class, suburban families is that they are stuck in limbo with the housing market. Since they or their parents formally came from a middle class background, the community itself fits their socio-ecomonic status, or so we think. The suburban area has declined drastically due to lack of attention. Should these families take cover in a more secure living area, where payments may be even harder to come by? Or should families like my neighbor stick it out in Suburbia, where public schooling, libraries and the family commodities and young me used to embrace such as parks, now all suffer from lack of funding. This new era therefore offers new attention from the opposing political parties for when there is lack of funding, there is always the opposing party there to assure change, "if in power."
Growing up in a middle class suburban area, I immediately took interest and severe concern to the facts being presented in this article. Last year alone 1.3 million people fell below the poverty line; this statistic became very apparent to me as I moved home last summer. My neighborhood development sits about 20 minutes outside the borders of Washington D.C. My parents moved there when they were both 30 years of age and have fortunately been able to hold down the dwelling well into their later years for my sake. However, upon moving home I realized a long time neighbor of ours had to pack up and move. The article speaks of the economic times at hand, and the turmoils many suburban families are suffering as a result. My neighbors are the exact example used in order to represent the recession at hand, and how suburban families are an extremely unrepresented and unacknowledged group amongst those acting out for people in need (progress reform). The problem with American, middle class, suburban families is that they are stuck in limbo with the housing market. Since they or their parents formally came from a middle class background, the community itself fits their socio-ecomonic status, or so we think. The suburban area has declined drastically due to lack of attention. Should these families take cover in a more secure living area, where payments may be even harder to come by? Or should families like my neighbor stick it out in Suburbia, where public schooling, libraries and the family commodities and young me used to embrace such as parks, now all suffer from lack of funding. This new era therefore offers new attention from the opposing political parties for when there is lack of funding, there is always the opposing party there to assure change, "if in power."
I agree with the previous comments (such as those of 381-334) in that the statistics of suburban poverty is shocking! I have heard about the prevalent of this phenomenon but I did not imagine that the extend of it would be of this porportion. 13.8 million poor surburbans is so close to the 14.6 million poor in the cities. I also agree with the other previous commenters in that poverty is ridiculously overrepressented in the inner-cities but rarely ever mentioned in suburbia. Until I read this article I would have never guessed in my wildest dreams that the poverty levels in suburban populations would represent 38.5% of the nations poor. This article really challenges the ideas that I have had about geographical the distribution of poverty and affluence. I always envisioned suburbia as the representation of the American Dream. As mentioned in the article, suburbia is mostly represented as the dwelling places of many television shows. This gave me the impression that it was the model living and what one aspires for. There are many factors that might contribute to the rise in suburban poverty. As commenter .213 stated, that poor people are now being able to move into more affluent neighborhoods through vouchers and other forms of assistance. Even though they are not being able to enjoy the benefits of those in the middle class, atleast they are able to live in a better place. The article also states that in the 1950's there were about 23% of people living in the suburbia and now there are 50% of people living there. This increase can lead to a wider variety of the type of people who dwell in those neighborhoods. Trends of suburban poverty is propogated by the increasing wealth gap. Though productivity has increased dramatically during these years, salaries have not. It is now so expensive to but homes, pay for education, pay for child care and the like. A middle class person living in the 1950's would be more likely to afford these things with there salary than a middle class family now. People who are living in suburban areas who do not belong to the middle class do not enjoy the type access the middle class has. They cannot afford health insurance and would mainly take comfort in knowing that they are in a better area. I think one of the public policies that should be implemented is mixed income housing. The article talked about how there is now segregation of suburbia. There is the distinction of the poorer suburbia and the affleunt suburbia, while the middled ground is on a decline. I think this could be implemented by banning rules that requires only large lot sizes to be bought. Such rules only lead to further segregation and could lead to negative environmental standards for those who are in the lower-income suburbia.
The data provided by this report undoubtedly challenges the geographical distribution of poverty and influence because most people would think that poverty only takes place in cities because most people who move to the suburbs seem to be doing well financially. However, about 35.9% of people in suburbs were living in poverty by the end of the year 2000. In terms of the outmigration of those who move from cities to suburbs, it would be more cost effective and easier to do so than those who moved from cities to rural areas because of the longer distances one must travel in rural areas to get from point A to point B. In the suburbs, it is easier to come by items of necessity and transportation is provided for you and it is more cost effective to live in a suburban area because of this. The wealthy make it harder on less fortunate or poor families because as they progress and move to the suburbs poorer families cannot afford the same lifestyle. For example, apartments are usually not in the suburbs because apartments are usually for the lower class. Also, if a wealthy person was to sell their house for a given number, the housing values go up and may cost poor families to try and cope with these expenses which can be difficult. Also, zoning is an issue, because the wealthy try to segregate themselves in a way from the poor because things like apartments lower house values. So a possible change could be to not raise house values because one individual sells their house for a large sum. Also, it needs to be more affordable for poorer families to live in these areas, and they should not have to try and match the biggest competitor because they cannot.
According to our notion of poverty and affluence, we see, or well expect to see more poverty in urban cities, or maybe even in far away rural areas, but the suburbs is generally where people would move to because they were better off financially and they wanted to live more comfortably and could afford it. This article complete rejects that notion because according to the article the percentage of people living in poverty in suburbs is almost equal to the percentage of people living in poverty in central cities. In the long run this totally makes sense to me now because back a couple of years ago the economy was doing very well and many people were just getting out of the poverty line and would decide to bid on the houses in suburban areas and they will end up living in a house in which they offered more than the listed price just because many other people were competing and biding to live in the area. This kept escalating despite the fact that people kept paying more than was expected for houses and it was common against people who could just barely afford the houses or could afford it but if they lived in it with other families that would help pay for the house even if it did mean they had to overcrowd the house. Eventually we get to today and now these houses aren't worth even half the price that owners paid for them and jobs are scarce while prices on everything are rising so nothing is affordable and so we are left with many more people in poverty, many of who were in poverty before as well. These families I speak of are generally those that are not members of the middle or upper classes that overcrowded in homes throughout suburbs but now cannot afford the homes so are in poverty. Public policies do indeed need to be changed in order to help the poverty problem in suburban areas. I think that the most important changes that should be made are in the healthcare system and in the education system because most of these poor families do not have health insurance which is essential to everyone's well being and most of these families have children that are in schools that are not as prestigious as schools in areas with wealthier people so they are not given the equal education and also many times this leads to the lack of control on children and their development along with their knowledge on decisions such as safe sex which is also affecting the poverty classes because it is forming a large group of people that are uneducated and have a family at a very young age so need money but don’t have the resources to get a good job all due to the fact that they were in an educational system that failed to give them the education that was surely given at another more prestigious school in a neighborhood where people are better off in SES.
I completely agree with the comment of 213. It is indeed astonishing that the percentage of poverty in suburbs is very close to the percentage of poverty in inner cities. Also I strongly agree with 213 opinion that the changes that need to be done have to begin with a change in the job market. But on that notion, I would like to know exactly what change could be or should be done in order to fix up the job market.
Well the suburb apparently is no longer the key to upward mobility. Many minorities live in the suburb, but when you look close it is some times a case of over crowding or two families living in one house etc. If you look at the situation closely, you can see why poverty has expanded to the suburbia. This causes the geographical image look disproportionate because of the large amount of minorities living in one place that is affordable enough. It seems as the years go by, the definition of wealth increases more and more. Before, owning a house in the suburb was ideal for a comfortable life, now people try to move out into larger homes in a more expensive area to get away from suburban poverty. When minorities come here with their American dreams, owning a house is a big deal. Even if they own a house with a relative, it is a big step, and then they realize they have to work extremely hard to make ends meet. One of the reasons I think this is the case is because even though they can barely afford a home, they do it to keep their kids away form even worse situations like violent neighborhoods where kids do not feel safe outside. For people in higher classes, they tend to live in a more expensive suburban area, gated neighborhood and probably a swimming pool in their back yard. For people in the lower class, suburb is a home in a decent neighborhood. But since many lower class families have trouble making monthly mortgage payments, the statistics may be thrown off and be categorized as being “poor”. I believe the economy is the sole reason today as to why poverty is moving to the suburbs. Improvements in job markets can help lower income people in the suburb, making it easier for them to pay off their mortgage etc. If our economy were stable, many of our financial issues would be resolved.
The comparable numbers of the suburban and urban poor is quite shocking given the outmigration of families with resources. Unfortunately, given our recent recession, I can only imagine that poverty in both sectors will continue to rise so long as there is unemployment and under-paid jobs. It makes sense that poverty is seeping out of the city to the fringe of surrounding suburbs because there are no dwindling job opportunities in the city. As a result, families might choose migrate out to areas where they can find any kind of employment and even lower cost housing than in the city. It seems that currently poverty has a pattern of developing in transitional areas between city to suburbs and suburb to rural. In response to .213, I agree that offering these vouchers to inner city poor families without adequate employment or transportation to maintain livelihood in these suburbs is useless. Suburban living is most beneficial when families have access to personal transportation to their jobs in the city or other suburbs. Even though public transportation is growing in these sectors, getting from one suburb to next is still difficult and time-consuming. Often times, poverty seems to develop from within the suburb itself when families can no longer afford the cost of living. Many families in suburbs have lost their jobs and are scraping to find any kind of employment to prevent foreclosure.
At my house the homeowners association requires a lot of the people that choose to live in the neighborhood. People are not allowed to have vehicles that are not functional in the driveway, nor are they allowed to park their boats or cars in the driveway or streets, and all lawns must be neatly manicured. To someone who is visiting my neighborhood they would think all is well, but in reality many of the families are struggling. Our neighborhood is about 6 or 7 years and the number of foreclosures are astounding. The house across the street from mine went into foreclosure about 4 years ago and only recently has a family moved in. Along with my neighborhood there are several other newly built neighboring communities with similar problems. The idea of having one working parent and a stay at home parent is a distant memory. I have witnessed the whole poverty in suburbia first hand. I remember in elementary school, the mom to student ratio seemed about 1 to 3. As we got older the number of the moms in the school slowly declined, as the economy slowly got worse.
Although some of the families may not like to admit that they are living in poverty or completely oblivious to the fact that they are, the changes however subtle they may be are obvious. I think that there are a lot of factors that combined to cause the increase in poverty in the suburbs. As mentioned the growth of immigrants and working class Americans has greatly affected the numbers but middle class America seem to be notorious for being frivolous. I recall a discussion we had in my AP American History class my junior year about a section of Tampa called New Tampa. A lot of people like to joke that the people here are “new money” and they like to show it. My teacher told us that New Tampa had the highest debt ratio per capita in the Tampa area.
It is evident by the increase of poverty in the suburbs that the rich are getting richer and the not so rich but not quite poor are getting poorer. For the families in middle class they are entering unfamiliar territory but they seem to always bounce back on their feet but the truly poor living in the suburbs are possibly the worst affected. People living in the suburbs are not generally favored as far as assistance goes from either their neighbors or the Government; they usually suffer from pride as well. The people living in poverty may be embarrassed to ask for help and as a result fall deeper and deeper into poverty.
I am not entirely sure what kind of policies would be appropriate for alleviating poverty in the suburbs but a nice start would be reliable public transportation.
After reading the article on Poverty in the Suburbs, I would have to agree that many of the poor areas located in suburbs are directly outside of city limits. I think this can be seen in areas around the two major cities, Baltimore and Washington D.C., that surround us here at Maryland. One can leave the city of Baltimore, for example, and easily observe the neighborhoods as they get better and better the farther from the city one gets from the city. One reason for this is the fact that many poor people use public transportation and as we all know cities have better public transportation than the suburbs, so living close to city limits can easily accommodate transportation needs. In addition, many resources used by people experiencing poverty are numerous in cities, so living nearby a city can be very beneficial to people in such a situation.
This article also covers the idea that those who are poor who migrate to the suburbs have better opportunities as far as jobs and schools for their children are concerned. I also agree with this concept. Currently I work at a family shelter and transitional housing located in a suburban community. I have seen first hand children living at the poverty level have the opportunity to attend decent middle and high schools. I have heard their stories of where they came from and where they are now and the fact that this transitional housing place has been placed outside of cities is a really positive thing for these people.
Post a Comment