The Economic Consequences of Homelessness in The US

Conceptualizing Working Poverty
In the United States, the issue of working poverty was initially brought to the public's
attention during the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s). Progressive Era thinkers like
Robert Hunter, Jane Addams, and W.E.B. Du Bois saw society's unequal opportunity
structure as the root cause of poverty and working poverty, but they also saw a link
between moral factors and poverty. In his study of Philadelphia's African American
neighborhoods, W.E.B. Du Bois draws a distinction between "hardworking" poor people
who fail to escape poverty due to racial discrimination and those who are poor due to
moral deficiencies such as laziness or lack of perseverance.
After the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II, the United States
experienced an era of prosperity during which most workers experienced significant
gains in wages and working conditions. During this period (1930s–1950s), scholars
shifted their attention away from poverty and working poverty. However, in the late
1950s and early 1960s American scholars and policymakers began to revisit the
problem. Influential books like John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society (1958) and
Michael Harrington's The Other America (1962) reinvigorated the discussions on
poverty and working poverty in the United States.
Since the start of the War on Poverty in the 1960s, scholars and policymakers on both
ends of the political spectrum have paid an increasing amount of attention to working
poverty. One of the key ongoing debates concerns the distinction between the working
and the nonworking (unemployed) poor. Conservative scholars tend to see nonworking
poverty as a more urgent problem than working poverty because they believe that nonwork
is a moral hazard that leads to welfare dependency and laziness, whereas work,
even poorly paid work, is morally beneficial. In order to solve the problem of nonworking
poverty, some conservative scholars argue that the government must stop "coddling"
the poor with welfare benefits like AFDC/TANF.
On the other hand, liberal scholars and policymakers often argue that most working and
nonworking poor people are quite similar. Studies comparing single mothers on and off
welfare show that receiving welfare payments does not degrade a person's desire to
find a job and get off of welfare. The main difference between the working and the
nonworking poor, they argue, is that the nonworking poor have a more difficult time
overcoming basic barriers to entry into the labor market, such as arranging for
affordable childcare, finding housing near potential jobs, or arranging for transportation
to and from work. In order to help the nonworking poor gain entry into the labor market,
liberal scholars and policymakers argue that the government should provide more
housing assistance, childcare, and other kinds of aid to poor families.
Discussions about the alleviation of working poverty are also politically charged.
Conservative scholars and policymakers often attribute the prevalence of inequality and
working poverty to overregulation and overtaxation, which they claim constricts job
growth. In order to lower the rate of working poverty, conservatives advocate reducing
welfare benefits and enacting less stringent labor laws. On the other hand, many
Page 50 of 289