Matthew Desmond has a message: US poverty is immoral

In his powerful, Pulitzer Prize-winning 2016 book “Evicted,” sociologist Matthew Desmond followed eight Milwaukee families facing the loss of their homes. His clearheaded but impassioned follow-up, “Poverty, by America,” examines the stubborn persistence of destitution in the wealthiest country in the world. The author makes the discomfiting argument that better-off Americans benefit, whether knowingly or unknowingly, from the impoverishment of their fellow citizens. Mr. Desmond calls on readers to consider their moral responsibilities to others, in service of an ambitious aim. “I want to end poverty, not reduce it,” he told Monitor contributor Barbara Spindel. “I don’t want to treat it; I want to cure it.” 

What made you decide to focus more generally on poverty? 

I had devoted most of my adult life to trying to understand poverty – living in poor communities, working with organizers – but I didn’t feel like I had a clear and convincing answer to why there was so much poverty in this incredibly rich nation. 

Is poverty different today? 

Things like toaster ovens and cellphones have gotten a lot cheaper, but as those things have declined in price, median rent has basically doubled in the last two decades; the cost of fuel and utilities and health care have risen. Life’s most basic necessities have gotten a lot harder to afford. A few other things about recent poverty are distinct. One is the rise of mass incarceration. Fifty or 60 years ago this was much less of a force in the lives of the American poor, and especially the Black and Hispanic poor, than it is today. And the housing crisis has accelerated. We’ve really rolled back our investment in affordable housing. 

Government spending on anti-poverty programs has grown over time. Why haven’t we seen progress? 

That spending is a lifesaver to millions of families, but a lot of our programs accommodate poverty and don’t disrupt it. They help people, but they don’t attack poverty at the root. Another main reason is that the labor market isn’t delivering for millions of families today. When the war on poverty was launched in 1964, unions were strong, real wages were growing, and you often could get a job with advancement and benefits without a college degree. We’re so far from that now, and one big reason is that unions are weak and wages have stagnated. 

How are poor people exploited in the housing and financial markets? 

It comes down to choice: Can people exercise a bit of agency in these systems? The only choice for most families below the poverty line seeking housing is to rent from a private landlord and devote half their income to housing costs. That’s because the waiting lists for public housing are incredibly long – sometimes counted in decades, not years – and they’re shut out of the home ownership market as well. The acceleration of rent is well past the acceleration of wages for renters over the past 40 years. In financial markets, the numbers blew me away. If you add up overdraft fees from banks and payday loan interest and check-cashing fees – the money a lot of folks have to pay just to receive their checks – you’re talking about $61 million being pulled out of pockets of low-income families every single day. That’s stunning. 

How are we all “on the dole”? 

Programs going to well-off Americans are often tax breaks – for home ownership or college savings or retirement plans. A lot of folks have a hard time seeing a tax break as the same thing as a welfare check, but they both cost the government money and they both put money in your pocket. The country’s welfare state is incredibly lopsided. We’ve chosen to subsidize affluence instead of alleviating poverty. 

What do you hope readers will do after reading this book? 

I hope that they become poverty abolitionists, that they decide that poverty isn’t an inevitable part of our nation but an abomination. A poverty abolitionist evaluates their own life: how they spend and invest, where they live. A poverty abolitionist supports rebalancing the safety net, with less rich aid and more poor aid. And a poverty abolitionist strives for inclusive communities and turns away from segregation. That might sound abstract, but it means showing up at zoning board meetings and saying, “I want this housing development here. I want other kids to get the opportunity my kids have received by living in this community.” 

What makes you optimistic? 

I have hope because we’ve been in this situation before. The early 1960s were incredibly polarized, but major pieces of civil rights legislation were passed, and the Great Society was rolled out, cutting poverty in half in 10 years. It happened because the civil rights and labor movements put unrelenting pressure on lawmakers. ... I have hope that we’re reaching for something better. An America without poverty is a safer America, a healthier America, a happier America. I think that’s something a lot of us pine for.