On behalf of the millions of children currently living in poverty in the US, allow me to remind you that… well, that there are millions of children living in poverty in the US.
These are uncomfortable statistics. Especially for those who can’t fathom any scenario where their own children (or grandchildren) would ever experience anything like poverty.
For most readers, this discussion is akin to certain kinds of conversations you’re infrequently compelled to, but would rather not, have with your doctor. Or like your semi-annual trip to the dentist for a teeth cleaning. You realize it’s necessary. But because it’s usually safe to ignore it in the short- or even in the medium-term, the tendency is to push it to the back of your mind. But, like plaque, it’s insidious over time. It must be addressed.
The reason I bring up childhood poverty now is simply because the US is trying to extricate itself from a public health crisis, and part of the palliative measures taken along the way involved direct payments to households and other types of enhanced federal assistance which (surprise, surprise) served to reduce poverty, specifically in April, May, and June. I talked about this late last month.
Read more: Less Money, More Poverty
“The entire decline in poverty through June can be accounted for by the one-time stimulus checks the federal government issued, predominantly in April and May, and the expansion of unemployment insurance eligibility and benefits,” economists Bruce Meyer, from the University of Chicago, and James Sullivan, of Notre Dame, wrote, in a study documenting the data from their near real-time poverty dashboard. “In fact, in the absence of these programs, poverty would have risen sharply.”
Using the same dashboard, one can see the effect of last year’s pandemic relief package on childhood poverty very clearly. Just in case, I’ve made the bars green (below).
The chart subheader is important. There’s no excuse for any measurable childhood poverty in the US. By “measurable” I simply mean that it’s impossible to wipe out every, single instance of an individual child experiencing poverty. That kind of economic micromanagement simply isn’t achievable. But, it’s probably possible to reduce childhood poverty to an extent that it would be so negligible as to be essentially immaterial from a statistical perspective.
You might scoff. This is, after all, a huge problem with multiple, overlapping causality and no easy fixes. And yet, I wanted to make the same point here that I made in the linked article above. Namely that the decrease in poverty during the months when the first major COVID stimulus package was being deployed indicates that lawmakers and Treasury can, in fact, drive down poverty rates literally overnight. It is that simple. Almost, anyway.
The figure (below) is from Census Bureau data and it’s meant to provide some perspective. More to the point, it’s meant to show that the trend is generally good. Childhood poverty in America has been on the wane for decades.
However, there are multiple disconcerting aspects of that simple chart. While it’s true that adjusting the y-axis would make the decline for white and Asian Americans appear more dramatic, the tragic irony is that in order to do so, I would have to literally pretend as though African American and Hispanic children don’t count.
But they do — count, that is. And while childhood poverty rates were falling quickly for minorities pre-pandemic, they were still triple levels for white and Asian American children. About 26% of African American children were impoverished in 2019. And that counts as the “best” outcome in the entire data series.
Additionally, you might note from the visual that the “progress” for white American children doesn’t look much like “progress.” Instead, it almost seems like the trend is more sideways than it is down.
The pandemic offers a rare opportunity to help address this issue. While it’s a simple observation, seeing it on a bar chart somehow makes it more “real.” The first visual above suggests that making a material dent in childhood poverty is as simple as legislating it away. Let that sink in.
If you’re looking for a nuanced suggestion, consider the following from the University of Maryland’s Melissa Kearney:
A social insurance program for children could dramatically reduce child poverty in the U.S., as Social Security has done for elderly poverty. The fact that children have the highest official rates of poverty in the U.S. is a dramatic reversal from the mid-twentieth century, when elderly poverty rates were the highest in the country. In 1959, 35% of those aged 65 and up lived in poverty, versus 27% of kids and 17% of adults. Social security has been a great anti-poverty success story for the elderly in this country. We could make a similar commitment to children. If each child living in poverty received a social insurance benefit equal to the average annual social security retiree benefit ($17,112), child poverty would fall to less than 1%. If each child living in poverty received half the average social security retiree benefit ($8,556), the rate of childhood poverty in the U.S. would fall below 4 percent. This would cost on the order of $179 billion and $90 billion a year, respectively. If the benefits were phased out at a rate of 70 cents on the dollar (which would clearly be a better policy design than a cutoff at the poverty line and would additionally reduce the number of children living in near poverty conditions), the annual cost estimates would be $293 billion and $118 billion, respectively. In 2019, our national Gross Domestic Product was $21.4 trillion. That means that with spending in the range of 0.4% to 1.4% of GDP, we could bring childhood poverty rates to less than 4 or 1 percent.
Think about all of the wasteful government spending that goes on every year. It would cost less than $300 billion, annually, to eliminate childhood poverty in America. 300 billion dollars, that is. And dollars, you’re gently reminded, can be conjured at will, with a legislative stroke of the pen and a keystroke at the Fed. They don’t need to be “sourced” from taxpayers, nor do they need to be “borrowed” from China, or anyone else. For context, the Fed is currently buying $120 billion in Treasurys and MBS each and every month. They aren’t taxing or borrowing to obtain the dollars for those purchases, folks.
Oh, and if you’re wondering how the US compares globally versus other rich countries on childhood poverty, the word is “embarrassing.” The US is nowhere near the OECD average. America can’t even see Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway, from where it’s at.
As the OECD noted, “in Denmark and Finland, the child relative income poverty rate is only around 3-4%.”
Eventually, this is going to undermine the US economy. It already is, but over time, it will be a figurative (and literal) death knell. How could it not be? As the above-mentioned Kearney wrote, “growing up in poverty has long-term consequences for children and is very much entwined with issues of inequality and social mobility.” She added that “children who grow up in poverty have poorer physical and mental health; worse performance in school, and, given neighborhood segregation by income, they are more likely to attend lower quality schools and live in neighborhoods with fewer employed adults.” (I’ve preserved her citations for reference.)
When you think about the arguments against proposals like that set out in the longer excerpted passage from Kearney, note that they’re very often couched in terms of the deficit and the national debt. “Think about our children and our grandchildren,” budget hawks often say, referencing the myth that future generations will need to “pay for” our expenditures now.
Yes, indeed. “Think about our children and our grandchildren.” Because the former are starving right now. And the latter will be starving later.
13 thoughts on “The Children Are Starving”
Right on, sir! What I don’t understand is how/why half the population of our country would openly oppose any such solution if asked. Of course, a huge proportion of us, of both genders, still feel it’s OK to beat up their female spouses (at least in the privacy of one’s own home) and would attach a biblical justification for the deed. In Independence, MO, something more than 80% of school aged children qualify for full meal benefits under current guidelines. And this is MAGA …..
One of the better H posts. Inspiring, actually. We (the privileged) are either creating, allowing or enabling this to continue. Thanks for the slap in face to get off my lazy bum … truly. As program manager once said, ‘you’re either part of the solution, part of the problem or in the way – take your pick, and i’ll respond from there’.
We are desperately in need of better leadership at the Federal level and probably at many of the state and local levels.
Politicians provide very little detail regarding their platform and what they actually want to accomplish if elected – because what works is saying as little as possible.
We need to have a better quality discussion about the budget and where the government spends the money. Sure, it is available if you look, but few do.
Hopefully, as more Boomers (collectively, whose moral compass always seems to point at themselves) leave political positions. younger generations can address these issues.
Embarrassing that this is the situation.
Time to look in the mirror, individually and as a nation.
Its embarrassing. It shows the lack of a safety net here. What would the poverty rate be if we had universal health care,subsidized child care, subsidized colllege or post secondary internships/education for trades, and a living minimum wage in the United States? I saw an article about what the pay is for a worker at a McDonald’s in Denmark- it was the equivalent of $22 per hour plus social benefits. It is long past time to stop subsidizing Walmart Corp. where they hand out applications for Medicaid to new employees. Some jobs might be lost – but at low levels of wage rates, employment levels are often inelastic versus wage rates- which means the job losses would be much less than the percentage of wage increases. And maybe some of those folks working 3 part time jobs to make ends meet would be better off with one full-time job, no?
A really moving and important article
This sort of thing simply doesn’t happen unless people consistently vote against their own interests. I have to admit that now the Dems and Reps are both so ensconced in the same feather bad that there is almost no way to vote for your own interests.
What good is all this wealth if our form of capitalism is purely predatory? Hunger, housing, health care , education, infrastructure and climate change should be our top domestic priorities, in that order…..
I hope your steady drum beat is picked up by others and invades all news media. I especially like that you take on the con which is enabling this problem to persist.
As a start they should have meals for any preschool and school children who need them and carry the meals through the summer when school is out of session. Help for children (and their mothers) between newborn and preschool should be an extension of the school programs.
She added that “children who grow up in poverty have poorer physical and mental health; worse performance in school, and, given neighborhood segregation by income, they are more likely to attend lower quality schools and live in neighborhoods with fewer employed adults.” (I’ve preserved her citations for reference.)
But but but… How can that be? We were told by conservatives that a good kick in the butt would get all those lazy bones to wake up and start working? How could conservatives ever be wrong about that?
We had everything but got unlucky and drew the short straw when it came to the ruling elites we would eventually have.
Let’s call it what it is, a failed nation. We have a ruling plutocracy that looted the continent and its people, we have a very large managerial class, then all the other citizens.
We don’t come back from this. Our state is structural. We haven’t hit the bottom of the trough yet. The years ahead are going to be painful.
But, can’t get depressed over it. By the measure of capture of our politic system by the ultra wealthy, our nation is a resounding success.
Unfortunately, Republicans’ today would block any effort at even discussing “structural” solutions to address this problem, let alone permit even minor “policy efforts”. In their eyes, “Making America Great” really means just for a select few.
The cynic in me believes “The 1%” view is, “Whilst we have an excess population (labour) pool, why waste investment in it’s sustainability?”