Hollie (Taylor) Atchison - Blog post #1

Abramsky’s book “The American Way of Poverty: How the Other Half Still Lives” has been a pleasure to read so far. In fact, my mother has purchased her own copy due to my positive response. We enjoy discussing what we have read and learned and relating it back to our political views. I look forward to continuing to read this book.

On page 51, Abramsky wrote “There is, after all, a reason Swedes…tolerate far higher taxes than Americans do.” What does Abramsky mean by this?

Abramsky is referring to the structure of Sweden’s tax system providing fundamental services (as well as a safety net) to their citizens through tax revenue. In America, we don’t operate under the assumption that each citizen is entitled to equal access to education, healthcare, and other institutions. The people of Sweden trust their taxing body to appropriate their tax contribution fairly and effectively. American people don’t have the trust and respect of the Internal Revenue Service (or any other taxing body) to carry out any decently functioning programs. A large part of American voters also purport to subscribe to the idea of “personal responsibility”, which places the burden on the individual to secure their own basic life needs. This portion of the population also support the idea that competing businesses will offer consumers great value or great quality (rarely both at the same time) of these services.

When did the attitudes towards welfare recipients shift in the U.S.?

Coinciding with a report penned by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the United States experienced a shift in attitudes toward welfare recipients. Prior to the 1970s, Americans mostly supported programs designed to provide a safety net for even the poorest citizens. Once the attitudes expressed in this report permeated public opinion, some members of society and our government leadership began to assign blame to the beneficiaries of public programs.  In fact, attitudes shifted so widely, that large companies and corporations began to befit from a redesigned tax code.

Have any specific passages from the book have struck you so far? If so, which ones?

Abramsky relates an interview with a 58-year-old African-American woman named Joyce. She has found herself unemployed and in poor health, but she is desperately looking for work. What stands out to me the most about this passage is the way Abramsky reports on attitudes toward the unemployed. It has recently been my job to support others who are looking for work, and I witness these hardships every day. Although it is frustrating that this is the reality of the situation, it is comforting to know that I’m not imagining things when I watch my clients face their uphill battles. Employers infer a poor work ethic when there are gaps in employment on job applications (resumes seem to have fallen out of fashion for entry-level positions; employers aren’t looking for unique traits as much as they value a checklist of skills). As the book states, “it’s an employer’s market, to simply pick from the active workforce.” Abramsky even refers to news reports of companies specifically asking unemployed job-seekers to not apply for their positions.