essays about poverty in america

Why Poverty Persists in America

A Pulitzer Prize-winning sociologist offers a new explanation for an intractable problem.

A mother and son living in a Walmart parking lot in North Dakota in 2012. Credit... Eugene Richards

Supported by

• Share full article

By Matthew Desmond

• Published March 9, 2023 Updated April 3, 2023

In the past 50 years, scientists have mapped the entire human genome and eradicated smallpox. Here in the United States, infant-mortality rates and deaths from heart disease have fallen by roughly 70 percent, and the average American has gained almost a decade of life. Climate change was recognized as an existential threat. The internet was invented.

On the problem of poverty, though, there has been no real improvement — just a long stasis. As estimated by the federal government’s poverty line, 12.6 percent of the U.S. population was poor in 1970; two decades later, it was 13.5 percent; in 2010, it was 15.1 percent; and in 2019, it was 10.5 percent. To graph the share of Americans living in poverty over the past half-century amounts to drawing a line that resembles gently rolling hills. The line curves slightly up, then slightly down, then back up again over the years, staying steady through Democratic and Republican administrations, rising in recessions and falling in boom years.

What accounts for this lack of progress? It cannot be chalked up to how the poor are counted: Different measures spit out the same embarrassing result. When the government began reporting the Supplemental Poverty Measure in 2011, designed to overcome many of the flaws of the Official Poverty Measure, including not accounting for regional differences in costs of living and government benefits, the United States officially gained three million more poor people. Possible reductions in poverty from counting aid like food stamps and tax benefits were more than offset by recognizing how low-income people were burdened by rising housing and health care costs.

The American poor have access to cheap, mass-produced goods, as every American does. But that doesn’t mean they can access what matters most.

Any fair assessment of poverty must confront the breathtaking march of material progress. But the fact that standards of living have risen across the board doesn’t mean that poverty itself has fallen. Forty years ago, only the rich could afford cellphones. But cellphones have become more affordable over the past few decades, and now most Americans have one, including many poor people. This has led observers like Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill, senior fellows at the Brookings Institution, to assert that “access to certain consumer goods,” like TVs, microwave ovens and cellphones, shows that “the poor are not quite so poor after all.”

No, it doesn’t. You can’t eat a cellphone. A cellphone doesn’t grant you stable housing, affordable medical and dental care or adequate child care. In fact, as things like cellphones have become cheaper, the cost of the most necessary of life’s necessities, like health care and rent, has increased. From 2000 to 2022 in the average American city, the cost of fuel and utilities increased by 115 percent. The American poor, living as they do in the center of global capitalism, have access to cheap, mass-produced goods, as every American does. But that doesn’t mean they can access what matters most. As Michael Harrington put it 60 years ago: “It is much easier in the United States to be decently dressed than it is to be decently housed, fed or doctored.”

Why, then, when it comes to poverty reduction, have we had 50 years of nothing? When I first started looking into this depressing state of affairs, I assumed America’s efforts to reduce poverty had stalled because we stopped trying to solve the problem. I bought into the idea, popular among progressives, that the election of President Ronald Reagan (as well as that of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom) marked the ascendancy of market fundamentalism, or “neoliberalism,” a time when governments cut aid to the poor, lowered taxes and slashed regulations. If American poverty persisted, I thought, it was because we had reduced our spending on the poor. But I was wrong.

Reagan expanded corporate power, deeply cut taxes on the rich and rolled back spending on some antipoverty initiatives, especially in housing. But he was unable to make large-scale, long-term cuts to many of the programs that make up the American welfare state. Throughout Reagan’s eight years as president, antipoverty spending grew, and it continued to grow after he left office. Spending on the nation’s 13 largest means-tested programs — aid reserved for Americans who fall below a certain income level — went from $1,015 a person the year Reagan was elected president to $3,419 a person one year into Donald Trump’s administration, a 237 percent increase.

Most of this increase was due to health care spending, and Medicaid in particular. But even if we exclude Medicaid from the calculation, we find that federal investments in means-tested programs increased by 130 percent from 1980 to 2018, from $630 to $1,448 per person.

“Neoliberalism” is now part of the left’s lexicon, but I looked in vain to find it in the plain print of federal budgets, at least as far as aid to the poor was concerned. There is no evidence that the United States has become stingier over time. The opposite is true.

This makes the country’s stalled progress on poverty even more baffling. Decade after decade, the poverty rate has remained flat even as federal relief has surged.

If we have more than doubled government spending on poverty and achieved so little, one reason is that the American welfare state is a leaky bucket. Take welfare, for example: When it was administered through the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, almost all of its funds were used to provide single-parent families with cash assistance. But when President Bill Clinton reformed welfare in 1996, replacing the old model with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), he transformed the program into a block grant that gives states considerable leeway in deciding how to distribute the money. As a result, states have come up with rather creative ways to spend TANF dollars. Arizona has used welfare money to pay for abstinence-only sex education. Pennsylvania diverted TANF funds to anti-abortion crisis-pregnancy centers. Maine used the money to support a Christian summer camp. Nationwide, for every dollar budgeted for TANF in 2020, poor families directly received just 22 cents.

We’ve approached the poverty question by pointing to poor people themselves, when we should have been focusing on exploitation.

A fair amount of government aid earmarked for the poor never reaches them. But this does not fully solve the puzzle of why poverty has been so stubbornly persistent, because many of the country’s largest social-welfare programs distribute funds directly to people. Roughly 85 percent of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program budget is dedicated to funding food stamps themselves, and almost 93 percent of Medicaid dollars flow directly to beneficiaries.

There are, it would seem, deeper structural forces at play, ones that have to do with the way the American poor are routinely taken advantage of. The primary reason for our stalled progress on poverty reduction has to do with the fact that we have not confronted the unrelenting exploitation of the poor in the labor, housing and financial markets.

As a theory of poverty, “exploitation” elicits a muddled response, causing us to think of course and but, no in the same instant. The word carries a moral charge, but social scientists have a fairly coolheaded way to measure exploitation: When we are underpaid relative to the value of what we produce, we experience labor exploitation; when we are overcharged relative to the value of something we purchase, we experience consumer exploitation. For example, if a family paid $1,000 a month to rent an apartment with a market value of $20,000, that family would experience a higher level of renter exploitation than a family who paid the same amount for an apartment with a market valuation of $100,000. When we don’t own property or can’t access credit, we become dependent on people who do and can, which in turn invites exploitation, because a bad deal for you is a good deal for me.

Our vulnerability to exploitation grows as our liberty shrinks. Because labor laws often fail to protect undocumented workers in practice, more than a third are paid below minimum wage, and nearly 85 percent are not paid overtime. Many of us who are U.S. citizens, or who crossed borders through official checkpoints, would not work for these wages. We don’t have to. If they migrate here as adults, those undocumented workers choose the terms of their arrangement. But just because desperate people accept and even seek out exploitative conditions doesn’t make those conditions any less exploitative. Sometimes exploitation is simply the best bad option.

Consider how many employers now get one over on American workers. The United States offers some of the lowest wages in the industrialized world. A larger share of workers in the United States make “low pay” — earning less than two-thirds of median wages — than in any other country belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. According to the group, nearly 23 percent of American workers labor in low-paying jobs, compared with roughly 17 percent in Britain, 11 percent in Japan and 5 percent in Italy. Poverty wages have swollen the ranks of the American working poor, most of whom are 35 or older.

One popular theory for the loss of good jobs is deindustrialization, which caused the shuttering of factories and the hollowing out of communities that had sprung up around them. Such a passive word, “deindustrialization” — leaving the impression that it just happened somehow, as if the country got deindustrialization the way a forest gets infested by bark beetles. But economic forces framed as inexorable, like deindustrialization and the acceleration of global trade, are often helped along by policy decisions like the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, which made it easier for companies to move their factories to Mexico and contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. The world has changed, but it has changed for other economies as well. Yet Belgium and Canada and many other countries haven’t experienced the kind of wage stagnation and surge in income inequality that the United States has.

Those countries managed to keep their unions. We didn’t. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, nearly a third of all U.S. workers carried union cards. These were the days of the United Automobile Workers, led by Walter Reuther, once savagely beaten by Ford’s brass-knuckle boys, and of the mighty American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations that together represented around 15 million workers, more than the population of California at the time.

In their heyday, unions put up a fight. In 1970 alone, 2.4 million union members participated in work stoppages, wildcat strikes and tense standoffs with company heads. The labor movement fought for better pay and safer working conditions and supported antipoverty policies. Their efforts paid off for both unionized and nonunionized workers, as companies like Eastman Kodak were compelled to provide generous compensation and benefits to their workers to prevent them from organizing. By one estimate, the wages of nonunionized men without a college degree would be 8 percent higher today if union strength remained what it was in the late 1970s, a time when worker pay climbed, chief-executive compensation was reined in and the country experienced the most economically equitable period in modern history.

It is important to note that Old Labor was often a white man’s refuge. In the 1930s, many unions outwardly discriminated against Black workers or segregated them into Jim Crow local chapters. In the 1960s, unions like the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America enforced segregation within their ranks. Unions harmed themselves through their self-defeating racism and were further weakened by a changing economy. But organized labor was also attacked by political adversaries. As unions flagged, business interests sensed an opportunity. Corporate lobbyists made deep inroads in both political parties, beginning a public-relations campaign that pressured policymakers to roll back worker protections.

A national litmus test arrived in 1981, when 13,000 unionized air traffic controllers left their posts after contract negotiations with the Federal Aviation Administration broke down. When the workers refused to return, Reagan fired all of them. The public’s response was muted, and corporate America learned that it could crush unions with minimal blowback. And so it went, in one industry after another.

Today almost all private-sector employees (94 percent) are without a union, though roughly half of nonunion workers say they would organize if given the chance. They rarely are. Employers have at their disposal an arsenal of tactics designed to prevent collective bargaining, from hiring union-busting firms to telling employees that they could lose their jobs if they vote yes. Those strategies are legal, but companies also make illegal moves to block unions, like disciplining workers for trying to organize or threatening to close facilities. In 2016 and 2017, the National Labor Relations Board charged 42 percent of employers with violating federal law during union campaigns. In nearly a third of cases, this involved illegally firing workers for organizing.

Corporate lobbyists told us that organized labor was a drag on the economy — that once the companies had cleared out all these fusty, lumbering unions, the economy would rev up, raising everyone’s fortunes. But that didn’t come to pass. The negative effects of unions have been wildly overstated, and there is now evidence that unions play a role in increasing company productivity, for example by reducing turnover. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics measures productivity as how efficiently companies turn inputs (like materials and labor) into outputs (like goods and services). Historically, productivity, wages and profits rise and fall in lock step. But the American economy is less productive today than it was in the post-World War II period, when unions were at peak strength. The economies of other rich countries have slowed as well, including those with more highly unionized work forces, but it is clear that diluting labor power in America did not unleash economic growth or deliver prosperity to more people. “We were promised economic dynamism in exchange for inequality,” Eric Posner and Glen Weyl write in their book “Radical Markets.” “We got the inequality, but dynamism is actually declining.”

As workers lost power, their jobs got worse. For several decades after World War II, ordinary workers’ inflation-adjusted wages (known as “real wages”) increased by 2 percent each year. But since 1979, real wages have grown by only 0.3 percent a year. Astonishingly, workers with a high school diploma made 2.7 percent less in 2017 than they would have in 1979, adjusting for inflation. Workers without a diploma made nearly 10 percent less.

Lousy, underpaid work is not an indispensable, if regrettable, byproduct of capitalism, as some business defenders claim today. (This notion would have scandalized capitalism’s earliest defenders. John Stuart Mill, arch advocate of free people and free markets, once said that if widespread scarcity was a hallmark of capitalism, he would become a communist.) But capitalism is inherently about owners trying to give as little, and workers trying to get as much, as possible. With unions largely out of the picture, corporations have chipped away at the conventional midcentury work arrangement, which involved steady employment, opportunities for advancement and raises and decent pay with some benefits.

As the sociologist Gerald Davis has put it: Our grandparents had careers. Our parents had jobs. We complete tasks. Or at least that has been the story of the American working class and working poor.

Poor Americans aren’t just exploited in the labor market. They face consumer exploitation in the housing and financial markets as well.

There is a long history of slum exploitation in America. Money made slums because slums made money. Rent has more than doubled over the past two decades, rising much faster than renters’ incomes. Median rent rose from $483 in 2000 to $1,216 in 2021. Why have rents shot up so fast? Experts tend to offer the same rote answers to this question. There’s not enough housing supply, they say, and too much demand. Landlords must charge more just to earn a decent rate of return. Must they? How do we know?

We need more housing; no one can deny that. But rents have jumped even in cities with plenty of apartments to go around. At the end of 2021, almost 19 percent of rental units in Birmingham, Ala., sat vacant, as did 12 percent of those in Syracuse, N.Y. Yet rent in those areas increased by roughly 14 percent and 8 percent, respectively, over the previous two years. National data also show that rental revenues have far outpaced property owners’ expenses in recent years, especially for multifamily properties in poor neighborhoods. Rising rents are not simply a reflection of rising operating costs. There’s another dynamic at work, one that has to do with the fact that poor people — and particularly poor Black families — don’t have much choice when it comes to where they can live. Because of that, landlords can overcharge them, and they do.

A study I published with Nathan Wilmers found that after accounting for all costs, landlords operating in poor neighborhoods typically take in profits that are double those of landlords operating in affluent communities. If down-market landlords make more, it’s because their regular expenses (especially their mortgages and property-tax bills) are considerably lower than those in upscale neighborhoods. But in many cities with average or below-average housing costs — think Buffalo, not Boston — rents in the poorest neighborhoods are not drastically lower than rents in the middle-class sections of town. From 2015 to 2019, median monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in the Indianapolis metropolitan area was $991; it was $816 in neighborhoods with poverty rates above 40 percent, just around 17 percent less. Rents are lower in extremely poor neighborhoods, but not by as much as you would think.

Yet where else can poor families live? They are shut out of homeownership because banks are disinclined to issue small-dollar mortgages, and they are also shut out of public housing, which now has waiting lists that stretch on for years and even decades. Struggling families looking for a safe, affordable place to live in America usually have but one choice: to rent from private landlords and fork over at least half their income to rent and utilities. If millions of poor renters accept this state of affairs, it’s not because they can’t afford better alternatives; it’s because they often aren’t offered any.

You can read injunctions against usury in the Vedic texts of ancient India, in the sutras of Buddhism and in the Torah. Aristotle and Aquinas both rebuked it. Dante sent moneylenders to the seventh circle of hell. None of these efforts did much to stem the practice, but they do reveal that the unprincipled act of trapping the poor in a cycle of debt has existed at least as long as the written word. It might be the oldest form of exploitation after slavery. Many writers have depicted America’s poor as unseen, shadowed and forgotten people: as “other” or “invisible.” But markets have never failed to notice the poor, and this has been particularly true of the market for money itself.

The deregulation of the banking system in the 1980s heightened competition among banks. Many responded by raising fees and requiring customers to carry minimum balances. In 1977, over a third of banks offered accounts with no service charge. By the early 1990s, only 5 percent did. Big banks grew bigger as community banks shuttered, and in 2021, the largest banks in America charged customers almost $11 billion in overdraft fees. Previous research showed that just 9 percent of account holders paid 84 percent of these fees. Who were the unlucky 9 percent? Customers who carried an average balance of less than $350. The poor were made to pay for their poverty.

In 2021, the average fee for overdrawing your account was $33.58. Because banks often issue multiple charges a day, it’s not uncommon to overdraw your account by $20 and end up paying $200 for it. Banks could (and do) deny accounts to people who have a history of overextending their money, but those customers also provide a steady revenue stream for some of the most powerful financial institutions in the world.

Every year: almost $11 billion in overdraft fees, $1.6 billion in check-cashing fees and up to $8.2 billion in payday-loan fees.

According to the F.D.I.C., one in 19 U.S. households had no bank account in 2019, amounting to more than seven million families. Compared with white families, Black and Hispanic families were nearly five times as likely to lack a bank account. Where there is exclusion, there is exploitation. Unbanked Americans have created a market, and thousands of check-cashing outlets now serve that market. Check-cashing stores generally charge from 1 to 10 percent of the total, depending on the type of check. That means that a worker who is paid $10 an hour and takes a $1,000 check to a check-cashing outlet will pay $10 to $100 just to receive the money he has earned, effectively losing one to 10 hours of work. (For many, this is preferable to the less-predictable exploitation by traditional banks, with their automatic overdraft fees. It’s the devil you know.) In 2020, Americans spent $1.6 billion just to cash checks. If the poor had a costless way to access their own money, over a billion dollars would have remained in their pockets during the pandemic-induced recession.

Poverty can mean missed payments, which can ruin your credit. But just as troublesome as bad credit is having no credit score at all, which is the case for 26 million adults in the United States. Another 19 million possess a credit history too thin or outdated to be scored. Having no credit (or bad credit) can prevent you from securing an apartment, buying insurance and even landing a job, as employers are increasingly relying on credit checks during the hiring process. And when the inevitable happens — when you lose hours at work or when the car refuses to start — the payday-loan industry steps in.

For most of American history, regulators prohibited lending institutions from charging exorbitant interest on loans. Because of these limits, banks kept interest rates between 6 and 12 percent and didn’t do much business with the poor, who in a pinch took their valuables to the pawnbroker or the loan shark. But the deregulation of the banking sector in the 1980s ushered the money changers back into the temple by removing strict usury limits. Interest rates soon reached 300 percent, then 500 percent, then 700 percent. Suddenly, some people were very interested in starting businesses that lent to the poor. In recent years, 17 states have brought back strong usury limits, capping interest rates and effectively prohibiting payday lending. But the trade thrives in most places. The annual percentage rate for a two-week $300 loan can reach 460 percent in California, 516 percent in Wisconsin and 664 percent in Texas.

Roughly a third of all payday loans are now issued online, and almost half of borrowers who have taken out online loans have had lenders overdraw their bank accounts. The average borrower stays indebted for five months, paying $520 in fees to borrow $375. Keeping people indebted is, of course, the ideal outcome for the payday lender. It’s how they turn a $15 profit into a $150 one. Payday lenders do not charge high fees because lending to the poor is risky — even after multiple extensions, most borrowers pay up. Lenders extort because they can.

Every year: almost $11 billion in overdraft fees, $1.6 billion in check-cashing fees and up to $8.2 billion in payday-loan fees. That’s more than $55 million in fees collected predominantly from low-income Americans each day — not even counting the annual revenue collected by pawnshops and title loan services and rent-to-own schemes. When James Baldwin remarked in 1961 how “extremely expensive it is to be poor,” he couldn’t have imagined these receipts.

“Predatory inclusion” is what the historian Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor calls it in her book “Race for Profit,” describing the longstanding American tradition of incorporating marginalized people into housing and financial schemes through bad deals when they are denied good ones. The exclusion of poor people from traditional banking and credit systems has forced them to find alternative ways to cash checks and secure loans, which has led to a normalization of their exploitation. This is all perfectly legal, after all, and subsidized by the nation’s richest commercial banks. The fringe banking sector would not exist without lines of credit extended by the conventional one. Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase bankroll payday lenders like Advance America and Cash America. Everybody gets a cut.

Poverty isn’t simply the condition of not having enough money. It’s the condition of not having enough choice and being taken advantage of because of that. When we ignore the role that exploitation plays in trapping people in poverty, we end up designing policy that is weak at best and ineffective at worst. For example, when legislation lifts incomes at the bottom without addressing the housing crisis, those gains are often realized instead by landlords, not wholly by the families the legislation was intended to help. A 2019 study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that when states raised minimum wages, families initially found it easier to pay rent. But landlords quickly responded to the wage bumps by increasing rents, which diluted the effect of the policy. This happened after the pandemic rescue packages, too: When wages began to rise in 2021 after worker shortages, rents rose as well, and soon people found themselves back where they started or worse.

Antipoverty programs work. Each year, millions of families are spared the indignities and hardships of severe deprivation because of these government investments. But our current antipoverty programs cannot abolish poverty by themselves. The Johnson administration started the War on Poverty and the Great Society in 1964. These initiatives constituted a bundle of domestic programs that included the Food Stamp Act, which made food aid permanent; the Economic Opportunity Act, which created Job Corps and Head Start; and the Social Security Amendments of 1965, which founded Medicare and Medicaid and expanded Social Security benefits. Nearly 200 pieces of legislation were signed into law in President Lyndon B. Johnson’s first five years in office, a breathtaking level of activity. And the result? Ten years after the first of these programs were rolled out in 1964, the share of Americans living in poverty was half what it was in 1960.

But the War on Poverty and the Great Society were started during a time when organized labor was strong, incomes were climbing, rents were modest and the fringe banking industry as we know it today didn’t exist. Today multiple forms of exploitation have turned antipoverty programs into something like dialysis, a treatment designed to make poverty less lethal, not to make it disappear.

This means we don’t just need deeper antipoverty investments. We need different ones, policies that refuse to partner with poverty, policies that threaten its very survival. We need to ensure that aid directed at poor people stays in their pockets, instead of being captured by companies whose low wages are subsidized by government benefits, or by landlords who raise the rents as their tenants’ wages rise, or by banks and payday-loan outlets who issue exorbitant fines and fees. Unless we confront the many forms of exploitation that poor families face, we risk increasing government spending only to experience another 50 years of sclerosis in the fight against poverty.

The best way to address labor exploitation is to empower workers. A renewed contract with American workers should make organizing easy. As things currently stand, unionizing a workplace is incredibly difficult. Under current labor law, workers who want to organize must do so one Amazon warehouse or one Starbucks location at a time. We have little chance of empowering the nation’s warehouse workers and baristas this way. This is why many new labor movements are trying to organize entire sectors. The Fight for $15 campaign, led by the Service Employees International Union, doesn’t focus on a single franchise (a specific McDonald’s store) or even a single company (McDonald’s) but brings together workers from several fast-food chains. It’s a new kind of labor power, and one that could be expanded: If enough workers in a specific economic sector — retail, hotel services, nursing — voted for the measure, the secretary of labor could establish a bargaining panel made up of representatives elected by the workers. The panel could negotiate with companies to secure the best terms for workers across the industry. This is a way to organize all Amazon warehouses and all Starbucks locations in a single go.

Sectoral bargaining, as it’s called, would affect tens of millions of Americans who have never benefited from a union of their own, just as it has improved the lives of workers in Europe and Latin America. The idea has been criticized by members of the business community, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has raised concerns about the inflexibility and even the constitutionality of sectoral bargaining, as well as by labor advocates, who fear that industrywide policies could nullify gains that existing unions have made or could be achieved only if workers make other sacrifices. Proponents of the idea counter that sectoral bargaining could even the playing field, not only between workers and bosses, but also between companies in the same sector that would no longer be locked into a race to the bottom, with an incentive to shortchange their work force to gain a competitive edge. Instead, the companies would be forced to compete over the quality of the goods and services they offer. Maybe we would finally reap the benefits of all that economic productivity we were promised.

We must also expand the housing options for low-income families. There isn’t a single right way to do this, but there is clearly a wrong way: the way we’re doing it now. One straightforward approach is to strengthen our commitment to the housing programs we already have. Public housing provides affordable homes to millions of Americans, but it’s drastically underfunded relative to the need. When the wealthy township of Cherry Hill, N.J., opened applications for 29 affordable apartments in 2021, 9,309 people applied. The sky-high demand should tell us something, though: that affordable housing is a life changer, and families are desperate for it.

We could also pave the way for more Americans to become homeowners, an initiative that could benefit poor, working-class and middle-class families alike — as well as scores of young people. Banks generally avoid issuing small-dollar mortgages, not because they’re riskier — these mortgages have the same delinquency rates as larger mortgages — but because they’re less profitable. Over the life of a mortgage, interest on $1 million brings in a lot more money than interest on $75,000. This is where the federal government could step in, providing extra financing to build on-ramps to first-time homeownership. In fact, it already does so in rural America through the 502 Direct Loan Program, which has moved more than two million families into their own homes. These loans, fully guaranteed and serviced by the Department of Agriculture, come with low interest rates and, for very poor families, cover the entire cost of the mortgage, nullifying the need for a down payment. Last year, the average 502 Direct Loan was for $222,300 but cost the government only $10,370 per loan, chump change for such a durable intervention. Expanding a program like this into urban communities would provide even more low- and moderate-income families with homes of their own.

We should also ensure fair access to capital. Banks should stop robbing the poor and near-poor of billions of dollars each year, immediately ending exorbitant overdraft fees. As the legal scholar Mehrsa Baradaran has pointed out, when someone overdraws an account, banks could simply freeze the transaction or could clear a check with insufficient funds, providing customers a kind of short-term loan with a low interest rate of, say, 1 percent a day.

States should rein in payday-lending institutions and insist that lenders make it clear to potential borrowers what a loan is ultimately likely to cost them. Just as fast-food restaurants must now publish calorie counts next to their burgers and shakes, payday-loan stores should publish the average overall cost of different loans. When Texas adopted disclosure rules, residents took out considerably fewer bad loans. If Texas can do this, why not California or Wisconsin? Yet to stop financial exploitation, we need to expand, not limit, low-income Americans’ access to credit. Some have suggested that the government get involved by having the U.S. Postal Service or the Federal Reserve issue small-dollar loans. Others have argued that we should revise government regulations to entice commercial banks to pitch in. Whatever our approach, solutions should offer low-income Americans more choice, a way to end their reliance on predatory lending institutions that can get away with robbery because they are the only option available.

In Tommy Orange’s novel, “There There,” a man trying to describe the problem of suicides on Native American reservations says: “Kids are jumping out the windows of burning buildings, falling to their deaths. And we think the problem is that they’re jumping.” The poverty debate has suffered from a similar kind of myopia. For the past half-century, we’ve approached the poverty question by pointing to poor people themselves — posing questions about their work ethic, say, or their welfare benefits — when we should have been focusing on the fire. The question that should serve as a looping incantation, the one we should ask every time we drive past a tent encampment, those tarped American slums smelling of asphalt and bodies, or every time we see someone asleep on the bus, slumped over in work clothes, is simply: Who benefits? Not: Why don’t you find a better job? Or: Why don’t you move? Or: Why don’t you stop taking out payday loans? But: Who is feeding off this?

Those who have amassed the most power and capital bear the most responsibility for America’s vast poverty: political elites who have utterly failed low-income Americans over the past half-century; corporate bosses who have spent and schemed to prioritize profits over families; lobbyists blocking the will of the American people with their self-serving interests; property owners who have exiled the poor from entire cities and fueled the affordable-housing crisis. Acknowledging this is both crucial and deliciously absolving; it directs our attention upward and distracts us from all the ways (many unintentional) that we — we the secure, the insured, the housed, the college-educated, the protected, the lucky — also contribute to the problem.

Corporations benefit from worker exploitation, sure, but so do consumers, who buy the cheap goods and services the working poor produce, and so do those of us directly or indirectly invested in the stock market. Landlords are not the only ones who benefit from housing exploitation; many homeowners do, too, their property values propped up by the collective effort to make housing scarce and expensive. The banking and payday-lending industries profit from the financial exploitation of the poor, but so do those of us with free checking accounts, as those accounts are subsidized by billions of dollars in overdraft fees.

Living our daily lives in ways that express solidarity with the poor could mean we pay more; anti-exploitative investing could dampen our stock portfolios. By acknowledging those costs, we acknowledge our complicity. Unwinding ourselves from our neighbors’ deprivation and refusing to live as enemies of the poor will require us to pay a price. It’s the price of our restored humanity and renewed country.

Matthew Desmond is a professor of sociology at Princeton University and a contributing writer for the magazine. His latest book, “Poverty, by America,” from which this article is adapted, is being published on March 21 by Crown.

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the legal protections for undocumented workers. They are afforded rights under U.S. labor laws, though in practice those laws often fail to protect them.

An earlier version of this article implied an incorrect date for a statistic about overdraft fees. The research was conducted between 2005 and 2012, not in 2021.

How we handle corrections

Advertisement

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• 2024 election
• TikTok’s fate
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

Why even brilliant scholars misunderstand poverty in America

Housing expert Matthew Desmond argues poverty has stagnated in America, but misses something big.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Why even brilliant scholars misunderstand poverty in America

Matthew Desmond, the acclaimed Princeton sociologist and author of Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City , thinks that poverty has barely improved in the United States over the past 50 years — and he has a theory why. Laid out in a long essay for the New York Times Magazine that is adapted from his forthcoming book Poverty, by America , Desmond’s theory implicates “exploitation” in the broadest sense, from a decline in unions and worker power to a proliferation of bank fees and predatory landlord practices, all of which combine to keep the American underclass down.

Desmond, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for Evicted , is an original and nuanced thinker and I cannot do his 6,000-word argument justice in a short article. But I do know a little bit about how we measure poverty, and I want to back up briefly and interrogate Desmond’s fundamental premise: Has poverty in America persisted ? Is it true that in recent decades, as Desmond writes, “On the problem of poverty ... there has been no real improvement — just a long stasis”? Is it true, as he posits, that the large increase in government spending on antipoverty programs in recent decades (a 130 percent increase from 1980 to 2018, by his numbers) hasn’t made a dent in poverty?

There is widespread disagreement, including among experts, about how to define “poverty.” But contrary to Desmond’s claim that the stagnation “cannot be chalked up to how the poor are counted,” I would insist the answer to whether poverty has fallen or stagnated in America depends entirely on how the poor are counted.

One set of approaches gives a clear answer: Poverty has plummeted dramatically since the 1960s due to a huge increase in government spending on programs that help lower-income people . Another set of approaches suggests that poverty has, as Desmond insists, stagnated (and would have risen absent that government spending ).

Both these approaches have useful, distinct stories to tell us about poverty in America. One point they agree on, though, is that safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes known as food stamps), Medicaid, Social Security, and the earned income tax credit have played an important role in reducing poverty. That is, Desmond’s core premise, that expanding safety net programs haven’t slashed poverty, is wrong. They have. You just need to measure poverty carefully.

How to measure poverty

To come up with a poverty measure, one generally needs two things: a threshold at which a household becomes “poor” and a definition of income. For instance, in 2023, a family of four is defined by the government as officially in poverty in the US if they earn $30,000 or less. That’s the Official Poverty Measure’s threshold, and weirdly it’s the same for 48 states and DC, but higher in Alaska and Hawaii, supposedly due to their higher cost of living.

But what does it mean to earn $30,000 or less? Should we just count cash from a job? What about pensions and retirement accounts? What about Social Security, which is kind of like a pension? What about resources like SNAP that aren’t money but can be spent in some ways like money? What about health insurance?

These aren’t simple questions to answer, and scholars like the late, great Rebecca Blank devoted much of their careers to trying to answer them. But I think it’s fair to say there’s a broad consensus among researchers that income should be defined very broadly. It should at the very least include things like tax refunds and SNAP that are close to cash, and simpler to include than benefits like health insurance.

That’s why there’s also near-unanimous consensus among poverty researchers that the official poverty measure (OPM) in the United States is a disaster . I have written about poverty policy for over a decade and have never heard even one expert argue it is well-designed. I was frankly a little shocked to see Desmond cite it without qualification in his article.

Its biggest flaw is that it uses a restrictive and incoherent definition of income. Some government benefits, like Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), count. But others, like tax credits, SNAP, and health care, don’t count at all. So many programs designed to cut poverty, like SNAP or Medicaid or the earned income tax credit, therefore by definition cannot reduce the official poverty rate because they do not count as income.

The Census Bureau now publishes a supplemental poverty measure (SPM), which uses a much more comprehensive definition of income that includes the social programs the OPM excludes. It also varies thresholds regionally to account for different costs of living, rather than simply breaking off Alaska and Hawaii. That’s a clear improvement.

Some experts, notably economists Bruce D. Meyer and James X. Sullivan , argue that looking for a definition of income is itself a mistake: Poverty is most usefully defined in terms of consumption, the resources people actually buy and consume. They argue this makes conceiving of benefits like Medicaid easier. Getting Medicaid is hard to think of as “income,” but enrollees are definitely “consuming” things like doctor’s visits, prescription drugs, etc, that they would struggle to obtain without those benefits.

But overall, disputes among poverty experts about how to define income or consumption or “resources” tend, in my experience, to be muted compared to disputes over where to draw the thresholds: where to set the poverty line and how to adjust it over time.

The simplest way to approach this is to do what the official poverty measure does: Take a set amount of money and adjust it for inflation over time. Specifically, the poverty rate was devised in 1963 by Mollie Orshansky , an economist at the Social Security Administration, based on the US Department of Agriculture’s 1961 estimate, which itself was based on 1955 data, of how much money a family of four would need for food, if they were really pinching pennies. Orshansky tripled this estimate, since families of three more typically spent a third of their income on food at the time. (Americans now spend only about 10 percent of income on food, though the subset of families that Orshansky was looking at may spend more.)

That was the poverty line, and it has not changed since, with the exception of annual adjustments according to the Consumer Price Index.

That is, of course, an incredibly arbitrary threshold to draw, and it’s almost a cliché at this point to note how dumb it is. There’s an episode of The West Wing with a subplot about how old and dumb and outdated the poverty line is, and that episode is itself now over 21 years old.

But experts are split on what a better line to draw would be.

Absolute versus relative poverty

The official poverty measure is what’s sometimes known as an “absolute” poverty measure. Measures like this generally only adjust their thresholds for inflation. Many are based on less arbitrary numbers than “what people spent on food in 1955,” and many use different measurements of inflation, since a lot of economists think the Consumer Price Index overstates price increases compared to the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) or chained CPI measures. But they fundamentally have a lot in common with the OPM’s approach: They set a dollar threshold for who is and isn’t poor and stick to it.

Absolute poverty measures are crystal clear about what has happened to poverty since the 1960s: It plummeted. The below chart shows three different absolute measures, all of which use expansive income definitions, unlike the official rate. All three have fallen dramatically.

(Many thanks to economist Kevin Corinth for passing along this series from his working paper with Richard Burkhauser, James Elwell, and Jeff Larrimore.)

The primary case for absolute measures like these is that they’re easy to interpret. Because the thresholds only change due to inflation, changes in the poverty rate only happen because people near the bottom get richer or poorer. If poverty falls, it’s because some low-income people gained more money or resources. If it increases, it’s because some low-income people lost out. Insofar as those kinds of material changes at the bottom are the main thing one cares about, absolute measures can be helpful. As a group of Columbia researchers argued in 2016 , absolute measures are “more useful for establishing how families’ resources have changed against a fixed benchmark.”

Applied to the US, the takeaway is that many fewer people are living on a very small amount of money than was the case in the 1960s.

But many poverty scholars prefer to use what are called “relative” measures. Such measures set the threshold as a percentage of the country in question’s median income (usually 50 or 60 percent). Most rich countries other than the US define poverty in this way. The European Union, for instance, uses what it calls an “at risk of poverty” rate , defined as the share of residents in a country living on less than 60 percent of the median disposable income. The United Kingdom uses a “households below average income” (HBAI) statistic, with the main threshold set to 60 percent of median income.

The case for relative measures is that poverty is socially defined, and “being in poverty” is usually thought of as people not being able to exist with the level of comfort that is normal in the society in which they live. A common definition, from the British scholar Peter Townsend , posits that poverty is “the absence or inadequacy of those diets, amenities, standards, services and activities which are common or customary in society.” Commonness or customariness are relative attributes, not absolute ones. Some, like sociologist David Brady, have also argued for relative measures on the grounds that they correlate better with self-reported mental and physical health and well-being .

Looked at in relative terms, poverty hasn’t fallen in the US in recent decades. It’s stagnated:

Advocates of absolute measures counter that relative poverty measures inequality rather than actual deprivation. Bruce Meyer, for instance, cites the experience of Ireland in the 2000s , which experienced “real growth in incomes throughout the distribution including the bottom. However, because the middle grew a bit faster than the bottom, a relative poverty measure shows an increase in poverty. Thus, we have a situation of nearly everyone being better off, but poverty nonetheless rising.” The reverse can happen in recessions, where if median incomes fall faster than incomes at the bottom, poverty can fall, even though everyone’s worse off.

Some measures, sometimes called “quasi-relative” or “semi-relative,” split the difference between the two approaches. They don’t merely vary with inflation, but they’re not a simple percentage of average incomes, either. The US supplemental poverty measure is a good example: It’s based on the 33rd percentile of spending on “food, clothing, shelter, and utilities” (FCSU). That is, researchers rank households by the amount they spend on those categories, find the point such that a third of households are below it and two-thirds are above, and use that as the basis for the SPM line. Because spending on these goods varies year to year, the thresholds change year to year, and not just based on inflation, but the change tends to be minimal compared to the changes in pure relative measures.

Government taxing and spending has become more important in fighting poverty

So … who’s right? The boring but correct answer is that these measures capture different things and each tells us something interesting. The fall in absolute poverty tells us that fewer people are living on very low cash incomes than were in, say, 1980. One estimate suggests that the fall in absolute poverty since 1967 means that 55 million fewer people lived in poverty in 2020 than would have if absolute poverty had stagnated.

The stagnation in relative incomes tells us that income growth at the bottom isn’t faster than growth at the middle and that there’s still a substantial share of America living on substantially below-average incomes — with 23.1 percent of Americans living in poverty under the definition used by the EU and UK (compared to 15.5 percent in the UK and 16.5 percent in the EU).

I do, however, want to highlight a point where absolute and relative poverty measures align: Government spending on social programs plays an important role in reducing poverty, and such spending does more to fight poverty now than it did in the recent past.

One highly cited absolute poverty measure is the “anchored” supplemental poverty measure , produced by Columbia researchers Christopher Wimer, Liana Fox, Irwin Garfinkel, Neeraj Kaushal, and Jane Waldfogel. This measure simply uses the Supplemental Poverty Measure thresholds from 2012 and extends them back to 1967.

This measure shows a substantial decline in poverty — but more importantly, it shows that government transfer programs are the only reason poverty has substantially declined. Before taxes and transfers, the poverty rate by this metric was 26.4 percent in 1967 and 22.5 percent in 2019. In the pandemic year of 2020, it shot up to 24.9 percent, barely different from 53 years previous. But after taxes and transfers, poverty fell from 25 percent in 1967 to 11.2 percent in 2019 — and to 8.4 percent amid the flood of stimulus money in 2020. The big story here is that government programs are doing much more than they did in the 1960s or 1980s to slash poverty.

One sees the same pattern in relative poverty. A 2019 paper by researchers Koen Caminada, Jinxian Wang, Kees Goudswaard, and Chen Wang for LIS, an international research center for income and poverty issues, estimates that in 1985, taxes and transfers in the US reduced relative poverty by 6.2 points. In 2013, the reduction was 9.7 points. Without government intervention, relative poverty would have increased from 1985 to 2013; instead, it merely stagnated.

Desmond, in his essay, spends some time marveling that “federal investments in means-tested programs increased by 130 percent from 1980 to 2018,” a fact he finds hard to square with the official poverty rate remaining flat. Surely that spending should have reduced poverty!

The answer here is simple: It did reduce poverty. The escalation of government investment made a difference, no matter what reputable poverty data you look at, whether absolute or relative. The only data series where it doesn’t make a difference is the official poverty measure, which literally does not consider most of this spending and acts like it does not exist.

The points Desmond makes about forces of exploitation in the markets poor people interact with — from payday lenders to bosses who can take advantage of their monopoly power and weakened unions to set low wages to the landlords he profiled in his breakout book — are well-taken. These could very well help explain why poverty would have stagnated or risen without government intervention, and addressing them might prove effective at fighting poverty. But there’s no need to couple this argument with claims that government spending has done nothing to reduce poverty. It has done a tremendous amount.

Much of the confusion in Desmond’s piece is not his fault, exactly. It’s the fault of the US government and its official poverty measure. Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services urgently need to abolish the OPM. It’s a bad number that tells a misleading story about poverty in America, and acting to replace it would do a lot of good.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Future Perfect

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Why is there so much lead in American food?

Multigenerational housing is coming back in a big way

You can’t afford to buy a house. Biden knows that.

Want a 32-hour workweek? Give workers more power.

The harrowing “Quiet on Set” allegations, explained

The chaplain who doesn’t believe in God

• From the Directors
• Mission & History
• Advisory Council
• Newsletters & Brochure
• Corporate Responsibility Initiative
• Corporations, Government and Public Policy
• Digital Assets Policy Project
• Education Policy Program
• Financial Sector Program
• GrowthPolicy
• Harvard Electricity Policy Group
• Harvard Environmental Economics Program
• Harvard Kennedy School Healthcare Policy Program
• Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
• Kansai Keizai Doyukai Program
• Regulatory Policy Program
• Rising Chinese Economic Power
• Sustainability Science Program
• Seminars & Conferences
• Annual Robert Glauber Lecture
• Working Papers and Reports
• Funding & Prizes
• Other Opportunities

Poverty in America: New Directions and Debates

In this section, related publications, the worst way to do college admissions, retooling career systems to fight workplace bias: evidence from u.s. corporations, differentiating on diversity: how disclosing workforce diversity influences consumer choice.

• photo essay

Below The Line: Portraits of American Poverty

Correction appended Nov. 18, 2011: A previous version of a caption in this slideshow incorrectly stated that a house had toxic drywall. TIME regrets the error.

In 2010, more Americans lived below the poverty line than at any time since 1959, when the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting this data. Last January, TIME commissioned photographer Joakim Eskildsen to capture the growing crisis, which now affects nearly 46.2 million Americans. Traveling to New York, California, Louisiana, South Dakota and Georgia over seven months, Eskildsen’s photographs of the many types of people who face poverty appear in the new issue of TIME . Eskildsen, who last visited America in 1986, says the poverty crisis was a side of the country he’d rarely seen in the media in Berlin, where he is based. “For Europeans living outside of America, it’s a mythical place because we’re breastfed with all those images of Coca-Cola and American culture,” Eskildsen says. “It was very heartbreaking to see all kinds of people facing poverty because many of these people were not only economically poor, but living in unhealthy conditions overall.”

Eskildsen was also surprised by how pervasive poverty is in America. “Once you start digging, you realize people in poverty are everywhere, and you can really go through your life without seeing them before you yourself are standing in the food stamp line,” he says. “So many people spoke about the disappointment of the American Dream—this, they said, was the American Reality.” In the accompanying magazine story, Barbara Kiviat argues that “there is no single archetype of America’s poor,” and that “understanding what poverty is in reality—and not in myth—is crucial” to efforts to erase the situation. Perhaps equally as crucial is the effort to put a face to the statistic, which Eskildsen has done here in haunting detail.

Joakim Eskildsen is a Danish photographer based in Berlin. He is best known for his book The Roma Journeys (Steidl, 2007) . More of his work can be seen here .

The project was done in collaboration with Natasha Del Toro, reporter for TIME.

Feifei Sun is a reporter at TIME . Find her on Twitter at @Feifei_Sun or on Facebook .

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
• Biden’s Campaign Is In Trouble. Will the Turnaround Plan Work?
• Why We're Spending So Much Money Now
• The Financial Influencers Women Actually Want to Listen To
• Breaker Sunny Choi Is Heading to Paris
• Why TV Can’t Stop Making Silly Shows About Lady Journalists
• The Case for Wearing Shoes in the House
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

You May Also Like

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Poverty — Poverty in America

Essays on Poverty in America

Poverty in America is a complex and multifaceted issue that has far-reaching implications for individuals, families, and communities. As a result, it is an important topic for students to explore in their essays. However, choosing the right essay topic on poverty in America can be challenging, as there are so many different aspects of the issue to consider. In this article, we will explore some potential essay topics on poverty in America and provide some tips for writing a high-quality essay on the subject.

Causes of Poverty

One potential essay topic on poverty in America is the causes of poverty. There are many factors that contribute to poverty in the United States, including economic inequality, lack of access to education and healthcare, and systemic racism. Students could explore these factors in their essays and consider how they interact with one another to create and perpetuate poverty in America.

Impact of Poverty

Another potential essay topic is the impact of poverty on individuals and communities. Poverty can have a wide range of negative effects on people's lives, including poor physical and mental health, limited access to education and job opportunities, and increased risk of crime and violence. Students could explore these effects in their essays and consider how they contribute to the cycle of poverty in America.

Solutions to Poverty

Students could also write essays on potential solutions to poverty in America. There are many different approaches that could be taken to address poverty in the United States, including increasing the minimum wage, expanding access to affordable housing and healthcare, and implementing policies to reduce economic inequality. Students could explore these potential solutions in their essays and consider their potential impact on poverty in America.

When choosing a topic for your essay on poverty in America, it's important to consider your own interests and expertise. If you have a particular interest in a specific aspect of poverty in America, such as the impact of poverty on children or the role of government assistance programs, you may want to focus your essay on that topic. By focusing on a topic that you are passionate about, you can create a more compelling and impactful essay.

Poverty in America is a critical issue that deserves careful consideration and exploration. When choosing a topic for your essay on poverty in America, it's important to consider the causes and effects of poverty, as well as potential solutions to the problem. By optimizing your essay for search engines and creating high-quality, engaging content, you can increase its visibility and impact. With careful research and thoughtful writing, you can create a powerful essay that contributes to the ongoing conversation about poverty in America.

Negative Effects of Poverty and Poverty

Obstacles to achieve american dream, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Love's Peril: Lessons from Romeo and Juliet

The problem of rural poverty in america, impact of poverty on children and families, the problem of poverty and an urgent need to fix it, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Global Issue of Poverty and Its Possible Solutions

Homelessness, its history in the us, and effects on people, hillbilly elegy: drugs and violence, gregory mantsio's 'class in america': the issue of prejudice in society, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Poverty in America During The Term of Barack Obama in The Article by The Economist

Effects on poverty in the house on mango street, the views of david shipler on the causes of poverty in america, essence of the state of homelessness in america, the problem of poverty in america: analysis of cal thomas' views, family homelessness in america, ways in which poverty can be addressed in the united states, the link between homelessness and opioid use and abuse, low income families and poverty in schools, the american culture of distancing the homeless, christian herald and signs of our times, the problem of homelessness in america, poverty and homelessness in the united states, growing up in poverty determines the person's fate, critical examination of the american dream: illusion or reality, introduction to poverty: causes, effects, and management, housing first' as a solution to homelessness in america, poverty and economic inequality: current american issues, jacob riis and how the other half lives, jo goodwin parker's discussion of poverty and feminization, relevant topics.

• Homelessness
• Food Shortage
• Child Poverty
• Dumpster Diving
• World Food Crisis
• Street Beggars
• Animal Testing
• Gender Equality

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Poverty In America

Students are often asked to write an essay on Poverty In America in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Poverty In America

What is poverty.

Poverty means not having enough money to live comfortably. In America, many people struggle to pay for food, a place to live, and doctor visits. It’s a big problem that affects children, adults, and families.

Causes of Poverty

People can be poor for many reasons. Sometimes they lose jobs, get sick, or have no education. In America, not everyone has the same chances, which makes it harder for some to earn money.

Life in Poverty

Living with little money is tough. Imagine choosing between buying food or paying for the bus. This is a daily reality for some Americans. They often feel alone and without hope.

Fighting Poverty

America tries to reduce poverty by giving food stamps and health care help. Schools also give free lunches to kids who need them. Charities and kind people also give support.

Poverty in America is a serious issue. It’s important to understand why it happens and how it affects people. By working together, we can help make everyone’s lives better.

250 Words Essay on Poverty In America

Understanding poverty in america.

Poverty means not having enough money to take care of basic needs like food, clothing, and a place to live. In America, many people struggle with poverty. It is a big problem that affects both cities and small towns.

Who is Poor?

Anyone can face poverty, but it often affects children, old people, and families with only one parent more than others. People who do not have a job or those who work but earn very little money are at risk too. Being poor can mean different things, like not being able to go to the doctor when sick or not having enough food.

Reasons Behind Poverty

There are many reasons why people are poor. Some lost their jobs, while others may have a sickness that makes it hard to work. Education is also important. Without good education, it’s tough to find a job that pays well. Sometimes, the place where people live has fewer jobs, which makes finding work harder.

Helping Those in Need

America has some ways to help people who are poor. There are food banks that give away food and programs that help pay for houses. Schools often provide free meals to students who need them. Yet, there are still many people who need help.

Poverty in America is a serious issue that needs attention. By understanding who is affected and why, and by knowing how to help, we can work on making things better for everyone. It’s important for everyone, including kids, to learn about this problem so we can all be part of the solution.

500 Words Essay on Poverty In America

Poverty in America is a serious issue where many people do not have enough money to meet their basic needs like food, clothing, and a place to live. It’s not just about being hungry or homeless; it’s also about not being able to go to the doctor when you’re sick or not having a safe place to sleep.

Who is Affected?

Anyone can face poverty, but it often affects children, old people, and families who do not have a person with a well-paying job. Some areas in cities and the countryside are poorer than others. This means that in some neighborhoods, many people might not have jobs, and schools might not have enough money for books or computers.

There are many reasons why people are poor. Sometimes, jobs do not pay enough, or there are not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. Education is another reason. If a person hasn’t had the chance to go to school or learn a skill, it’s harder for them to find a good job. Also, if someone gets sick and doesn’t have insurance, they might have to spend a lot of money on doctors and medicine, which can lead to poverty.

Living in poverty is very tough. Imagine not knowing where your next meal will come from or being cold because you can’t afford a warm coat. Kids might not have the same chances as others because their parents can’t afford things like books or trips to the museum. Poverty can make people feel alone and without hope.

Thankfully, there are ways to help people in poverty. The government has programs that give money, food, and health care to those who need it. Charities and churches also help by giving food, clothes, and sometimes places to stay. People can volunteer their time or donate things they don’t need anymore.

What Can We Do?

Everyone can do something to fight poverty. If you get an allowance, you could save some to give to a food bank. You can also learn more about poverty and tell others, so more people understand the problem. Even small actions, like being kind to someone who doesn’t have much, can make a big difference.

Poverty in America is a big problem, but it’s not impossible to fix. When people work together to help those in need and create opportunities for everyone, things can get better. Remember, even as a student, you have the power to make a change in your community.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Poverty And Inequality
• Essay on Poverty And Environment
• Essay on Positive Thinking

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Poverty in America, Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 1227

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Poverty in America is beyond and epidemic. Many people in the United States are battling hunger every day. Sadly, many of those people are children. Nearly 24 percent of African Americans are living in poverty Around the United States. That number equates to about 12 percentile of the United States population. Consequently, more than two million African Americans and other people of color are at or below the federal poverty level. Most of these victims are under the age of 18. (Bolland, 2004) The impact that poverty has on its victims is devastating. The communities in which these persons live are characterized by social disorder, drug and alcohol use, unemployment, and victimization. The exposure to violence increases t he individual chances of internalizing symptoms. Hence, individuals who are experiencing these conditions are more likely to self medicate using drugs and alcohol. Sociologists have been trying to help remedy this problem for decades; however stamping out poverty is a problem that can only be eliminated through the efforts of an entire nation. Living in poverty produces a sense of hopelessness for all that are victims.

Many perspectives help to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of how living in poverty produces a feeling of hopelessness which leads to other manifestations.

According to Wilson (2005), when living in poverty African American families share some common features. For example, most of them are victims of low economic development, infant mortality rates, shorter life spans, high risk for imprisonment, low values in obtaining education, and more likely to be the victim or culprit of an act of violence. Likewise, Williams (2005) points out that children who are poor and African American are more likely to be isolated socially from mainstream America, exposed to “ghetto cultures” by watching television shows that depict people who values materialistic wealth, exposed to poor living conditions, unsafe environments, and drop out of school before attaining a high school diploma. However, (Bolland, 2003) goes on to state that despite all of these odds, African American children seem to maintain hope. Many studies have examined the resilience and positive outlook of the youth. Too often, impoverished African American youth are labeled as high risk or at risk. According to Logan (2001), African American youths are faced with many challenges associated with their psychosocial development growing up in environments that are poverty stricken. He believes that these youths are more likely to be pressured into joining a gang. He also discusses what he terms “street skills”. “Street skills” is when these youths adapt to survive by whatever means is necessary. In other words, they learn to lie, steal, cheat, and fight if they must to make it from day to day. Consequently, these adaptations affect the family structure and social skills of African Americans for generations. Reports from national statistics show that gang affiliation has grown to over 772,500 members in late 2005. African American youths who feel that their families do not love them or have families that are non-nurturing are more likely to be gang affiliated (Blackmore, Mayo, & Blakemore, 2007).

All of the studies were community based that focused on African American adolescents between the age of 13-17 who resided in impoverished neighborhoods. The researchers wanted to explore how impoverished African American youths react to experiencing hopelessness due to poverty. Two of the main questions researchers were seeking to answer was how do low-income African American youths perceive and experience hope or the lost of hope and how do they view goals and future orientation.  Of the families that participated, the median income was about $11, 310(Blackmore, Mayo, & Blakemore, 2007). Of the families that participated about 48 percent were living in poverty. For those that were living in government assisted housing subdivision, 78 percent of them paid $288 dollars or less for monthly rent. The graduation rate was about 60.5 percent. Eighty-eight percent of them received free or reduced price lunch in their public schools. Astonishingly, 67 percent of the youth documented received their high school diploma. (Williams, 2004) This finding supports earlier claims that even in dire situations; many African American youths remained positive and hopeful about their futures. All interviews were audio recorded. Youths were asked questions as follows:

• Describe a typical day
• What are your dreams for the future?
• What might get in the way of you achieving your dreams?
• What makes a person successful
• In your own words, what does hope mean?
• When faced with a challenge, how do you respond? (Blackmore, Mayo, & Blakemore, 2007).

Surprisingly, many youths had great aspirations. Many said that they wanted to become teachers, doctors, lawyers, artists, nurses, and other professional careers.  The participants were given cameras and asked to take pictures of images that represented hope and hopelessness to them.  The study took place from October 4, 2009 through May 15, 2011.

The Hope Theory conveys that all human actions are goal directed. A person’s cognitive component is comprised of goals. The Hope Theory is comprised of two types of goals: type 1 and type 2. Type 1 reflects positive outcomes. For example, one may reach a goal or accomplishment for the first time or may be able to sustain a goal over a period of time. Type 2 is associated with negative outcomes. For example, one may give up on something and never reach a goal or be deterred so that the goal outcomes are delayed.  According to the theory, individuals with high hope are more decisive about which routes they must take in order to reach their goals. They also have the ability to take alternative routes when necessary to reach goals. The alternative to high hope individuals are those with low hopes. These individuals are unable to set goals and reach them. They are also unable to use alternative routes to reach these goals. The individuals in these studies mostly possessed high hopes. Of the youths that participated, eighty-six percent displayed characteristics of high hopes. (Logan, 2001).

Poverty in the United States remains a world problem. It affects many people and does not discriminate based on religion or ethnicity. Any person can become a victim of poverty due to any number of circumstances. However, in the United States members of the African American community seem to represent a large number of people who are living in poverty. Much research has been done to understand why and what can be done to remedy this issue. According to the researchers, in order to break the chain of poverty victims must have a mindset of hopefulness (Logan, 2001). The majority of the victims who participated in the studies possessed this quality. They conveyed that hopeful thinking develops from birth into early adulthood. However, this idea is taught by care givers. In order to develop into high hope thinkers, children must have high hope role models.

Works Cited

Bolland, J.M. (2004). Hopelessness and violence among inner-city youths. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 5 (4), 237-242.

Blakemore, J.L., Mayo, Y. & Blakemore, G.M. (2007). African-American and other street gangs: A quest for identity (revisited). In L.A. (Lee) See (Ed.) Human

Behavior in the Social Environment from an African American Perspective (2nd). Binghamton, NY: The Hawthorne Press, Inc.

Logan, S. (2001). The Black family: Strengths, self-help, and positive change . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Williams, A. (2005). Class, Race, and Power: Interest Group Politics and Education. The  Urban Review , 37, 2, 127-147.

Wilson, J. (2005). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public  policy . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Industrial Safety Health Management, Essay Example

Richard N. Frank Lawry’s Restaurants, Term Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Poverty in America

Introduction.

For many years, the United States has been experiencing high rates of poverty due to various social and economic processes. The living standard in the United States has been rising for the last 45-years, with the GDP per capita doubling since the 1950s. Despite the country having wealthy people, the living standards for millions of people seem stagnated. Income inequality keeps rising—meaning that many people have been facing economic barriers, without real representation in the economic domains. Many Americans have been left out in the economic decision-making, especially when it comes to issues that determine the degree of earning in the same society. The US is among the richest country across the globe, but the level of income inequality that has existed in the country for the past three decades continues to intensify the rates of poverty. According to the 2019 Census Bureau reports, the poverty rate in the United States stood at 15%, meaning that over 50.2 million people were around the poverty belt (Hoynes et. 49). The rate of poverty, especially in the West Coast states continues to worsen every day, with federal and state governments failing in economic and social aspects in an attempt to reduce the rate of poverty. Some wealthy families have invested heavily in the United States to help lift the living standards of the people through offering employment opportunities, but the government has failed to combat the rising employment demands in the country. In America, social and economic processes such as large family structure and unemployment are in fact the main contributors to the high rate of poverty, but not personal shortcomings and attributes.

Social Processes Causing Poverty in the United States

Family structure.

The family structure has been the main cause of poverty not only in the United States but also across the entire world. There have been, however, significant changes in the family nuclear and the living arrangement for the people for the past few decades. For instance, since the year 1967 to 2003, the number of people living in families headed by females has doubled. However, this means that the number of single families has continued to increase at a high rate. As it stands now, the rate of families headed by single mothers is four times as it was three or four decades ago. The increasing changes in the family arrangement and the overall structure of the families have resulted in a high rate of poverty. Brady argues that the high rate of poverty in many states in the US has intensified due to rising demands and the single-parent family approach (162). Brady further states that extended and large families evident in the United States, especially for the immigrants and indigenous people has further increased the poverty rate high (159). For example, the statistics show that the poverty rate has been high for families with a large number of families.

Families headed by females have increasingly entered into an intense state of poverty due to declined opportunities for income generation as most women have less working time, experience, and declined commensurate income earning potential. Many families headed by single mothers in the United States face problems such as uneducated children due to a lack of enough financial resources to educate their children. In fact, high school fees have pushed many families with a large number of children towards the poverty line. The US government, together with other agencies needed to initiate enough policies that will enable single mothers to overcome income inequalities. The family structure has not been friendly for many families in the United States (Hoynes et. 53). However, it must be recalled that the poverty rate is not highly witnessed for single-mother families, but also for single men with children. The data indicates that the percentage of single mothers and single fathers with children and who are extremely struggling with poverty stands at 6.2% and 0.8% families.

While the United States government has initiated different measures to decline the rate of poverty, poverty has still persisted across different groups—with the largest and highest poverty rate for single families, and the rate of poverty has been evident for married families. The high rate of poverty has intensely been reflected by the families shifting towards single-headed families (Hoynes et. 56). Single-headed families mean that the income is only generated by only parents —meaning that a large portion of the income earned by single-parent goes to food, school, and clothing. In fact, it translates that many single parents have not yet attained proper balance in the labor force. Even the limited capital generated by such families does not primarily support all the needs of the people.

In the United States, the government has not yet attained a greater milestone in achieving education balance. In fact, education has been contributing factor towards the high rate of poverty evident in many parts of the states. For the last three decades, minority communities such as Latino and African Americans have not yet attained equal rights and opportunities towards education. since the era of great slavery and segregation, racial discrimination among the minority communities has further extended to various generations, resulting in a high number of uneducated minority people across America. Nolan et al argue that approximately 50% of the black people in the US aged between 80 and 50 years are living in poverty line due to limited access to education (132). majority of black Americans have attained low-level education, while others are yet to attain any level of education due to increased racial discrimination in district schools and limited financial resources to support education. low education attainment has forced many minority people to depend on unskilled employment opportunities to effectively sustain their living and that of their family members (Nolan et al. 124). Actually, unskilled people normally receive small wages that cannot meet their social welfare, food, and education. Further, the uneducated population has limited opportunities for employment—meaning that such families with uneducated children or parents have experienced a high rate of poverty.

Cultural Differences

Many scholars of the structural and cultural schools of thought have argued that cultural differences in the United States have fostered economic barriers for various groups, especially to women and children. The level of ethnicity among many Americans has formed grounds for gender identity and racial differences, which has acted as a block for women and children towards attaining the working class. Vacaflores claims that the rise of poverty among unemployed youths and women has greatly been contributed by the patriarchal social formation and structures that have resisted the inclusion of women into the working proportion (256). The workplace for many sectors in the United States has been heavily dominated by men.

The social welfare program initiated by the US government does not fully cater to the needs of all women and children. The social program has been selected, especially for the minority communities and immigrants. However, this can be heavily linked to gender discrimination has led to high-income inequality among the genders, and has further resulted in increased poverty rates. For this reason, women need to be well presented and included in social welfare to ensure that those in vulnerable neighborhoods receive social necessities such as proper education (Vacaflores 261). The policies should be initiated to ensure no further discrimination in the workplace, and that there is equitable sharing of resources regardless of gender or race.

• Immigration

The number of immigrants in the United States has been rising for the last three decades. Most of the immigrants coming into the US are less educated, while others have not attained any level of education. Most immigrants are less educated and do not speak English. However, this has made many immigrants miss many opportunities since they cannot secure jobs in English based workplaces. This means that many immigrants have to study basic skills such as reading and speaking English in order to secure employment opportunities in various sectors. Homan et al conducted a research study and found that many immigrants have fewer skills than native-born Americans, and cannot secure stable job opportunities in a competitive labor market (1032). For example, in 2000, approximately 17.4% of the immigrants living in the United States were living below the poverty line (Homan et al. 1035). The influx of immigrants in the United States for the last few years has been characterized by less education and is responsible for the high rate of poverty in America. In fact, for those immigrants who choose to acquire education in the United States, it takes many years before entering into the labor markets. This means that they depend on the social welfare programs to support their education and feed their families. This explains why a high rate of poverty is evident in west coast states, where immigrants dominants.

The United States is typically divided into two groups—those who were born in the country and are headed by native parents, and those who come into the United States, either to seek a green card or for their studies. The United States is the leading developed country with a high population of immigrants due to their foreign policies, and good relationship with developing countries. Most immigrants do not have the proper background in the United States and many of them end up being jobless. Research shows that the poverty rate in the United States for the native people has greatly fallen by 50% compared to approximately 12.4% of the immigrants (Lawrence et al. 107). This means that factors such as education for the immigrants have been contributing factors towards the declining level of education. Many immigrants do not have stable jobs, while others are living in poor conditions due to a lack of strong financial support.

Many immigrants have been high discriminated against not only in the education sector but also in the workplace. Many native Americans with business refer to immigrants as Aliens—meaning people with little skills and experience. Many workplaces have been dominated by Native Americans, leaving immigrants with no job employment. To some extent, the United States government has failed to address the issues of immigrants in relation to education and employment. The US government has not yet formulated strong education and employment programs to support a large number of immigrants without jobs. Many immigrants living without basic education are living on the poverty line. Lawrence et al argues that most of the immigrants in the United States, experiencing extreme poverty have no education (118). Lawrence et al further explains that there is a number of barriers to education facing immigrants in the United States, including lack of strong financial support for basic education necessities such as books, increased bias against female gender, and high level of discrimination in the education sector (121). Lack of education for the immigrants means that the majority miss great equalizer for poverty. This is because education is the gateway to well-paying jobs in the United States. The United States government needs to collaborate with UNESCO and other international actors to improve the education status for many immigrants arriving in the US. Notably, poverty can extremely threaten the educational attainment of many immigrants, but attaining good education can help in ending the state of poverty.

Economic Processes Causing Poverty in the United States

Unemployment.

The high rate of unemployment evident in the United States has promulgated the rate of poverty for many people. Lawrence et al argues that 12% of the unemployment in the United States has contributed to high poverty, especially for the people without supportive families (106). Before, examining how unemployment has led to a high rate of employment, it is very important to outline some factors that have resulted in a high rate of unemployment in the USA. First, the economic recession such as the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly contributed to the high rate of unemployment. Many sectors such as Education, healthcare, and security have tremendously failed to meet the evident rising demand for employment for youths in America. Just as evident now across the world, the spreading of the COVID-19 pandemic has appeared like the economic recession that has intensified the rate of unemployment in the United States. Millions of people have lost their jobs, while thousands of business people have closed their jobs and others have scaled down the number of workers to minimize business losses (Lawrence et al. 112) Poverty has intensified for the families who have lost jobs due to economic recession. In fact, the United States government has done less to help those families overcome social and economic uncertainties, but still, the rate of poverty has continued to rise.

Economic Recession

Across the world, the economic recession is contributing factor towards income inequalities, unemployment, and high living standards. The economic process characterized by a high level of education has been contributing factor towards rising trends and increased poverty in America. The economic growth has been declining due to a number of factors such as unemployment and a high inflation rate. With increased economic growth, many companies have found it difficult to support the rising demand for jobs and high wages. However, it means that declined economy has resulted in an absolute decrease in salaries and eventually led to pushing many people towards the poverty line (Nolan et al. 126). In fact, the standard of living has been rising, and with the government failing to balance the economic status, many people facing salary cuts found themselves struggling with rising living standards. The high rate of unemployment has significantly affected women than men. The economic vulnerability has failed to support the rising number of women seeking employment opportunities (Lawrence et al. 116). This translates that many families have been depending on men to provide for food, shelter, education, and other needs. Overall, it means that a large portion of salaries goes to cater to family needs, instead of helping open new opportunities for the family members.

Climate Change

Climate change continues to hurt the world in different ways and the United States has not been an exception. Climate change creates hunger through drought and flooding, and its effect has been contributing factor toward poverty cycling in the United States. Although the United States has not been greatly affected by climate change, those countries affected by global warming such as developing countries and which American depends on them for the supply of raw materials continues to pose a serious threat to the future of the US in terms of economic growth (Hoynes et. 59). Flooding and drought cause starvation, meaning that the United States keeps spending huge sums of money to cater for food and other basic needs through social welfare programs.

Government Taxation and Transfer Programs

The US tax and other social transfer programs represent a critical source of income for many poor people in the United States. Among the poor, the main source of the transfer programs that have been provided by the US government through Temporary Assistance, especially to the needy families come from low and middle-income families. Since the US government provides cash benefits directly to poor people, they have a direct effect on poverty and income. The impact comes through changing people’s behavior. The transfer programs have made many poor people develop the tendency of relying on the government for support. Many immigrants depending on cash transfer programs do not focus on securing stable employment that can uplift their living standards. Hoynes et argues that the structure of the US government, especially towards supporting the vulnerable people does not directly help uplift the standards of people since it only focuses on offering basic support that cannot assist in providing all the needs for the people (63).

In summary, social and economic processes such as large family structures and unemployment are now the leading causes of poverty in the US. United States government must address poverty as an emergency social issue by ensuring economic and social balance. Many Americans have been left out in the economic decision-making, especially when it comes to issues that determine the degree of earning in the same society. The US is among the richest country across the globe, but the level of income inequality that has existed in the country for the past three decades continues to intensify the rates of poverty. Many families headed by single mothers in the United States face problems such as uneducated children due to a lack of enough financial resources to educate their children. In the United States, the government has not yet attained a greater milestone in achieving education balance. Education has been contributing factor towards the high rate of poverty evident in many parts of the states. Poverty has intensified for families who have lost jobs due to economic recession. The United States government has done less to help those families overcome social and economic uncertainties, but still, the rate of poverty has continued to rise. The transfer programs have made many poor people develop the tendency of relying on the government for support.

Works Cited

Bobo, Lawrence, Et Al. “Public Opinion Before and After a Spring of Discontent 1.”  The Los Angeles Riots . Routledge, 2019. 103-133.

Brady, David. “Theories of the Causes of Poverty.”  Annual Review of Sociology  45 (2019): 155- 175.

Homan, Patricia, Lauren Valentino, And Emi Weed. “Being and Becoming Poor: How Cultural Schemas Shape Beliefs About Poverty.”  Social Forces  95.3 (2017): 1023-1048.

Hoynes, Hilary W., Marianne E. Page, And Ann Huff Stevens. “Poverty in America: Trends and Explanations.”  Journal of Economic Perspectives  20.1 (2006): 47-68.

Nolan, Laura B., Jane Waldfogel, And Christopher Wimer. “Long-Term Trends in Rural and Urban Poverty: New Insights Using a Historical Supplemental Poverty Measure.”  The ANNALS of The American Academy of Political and Social Science  672.1 (2017): 123- 142.

Vacaflores, Diego E. “Are Remittances Helping Lower Poverty and Inequality Levels in Latin America?”  The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance  68 (2018): 254-265.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Sociology gender: misogyny and sexism, causes and effects of industrial revolution, anti-racism in social work, the impact of structural racism and institutional inequality in ferguson, counterterrorism and american presence overseas, comparing and contrasting the lives of poor people during the industrial revolution and the lives of poor people in the 21st century, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

The Hardships and Dreams of Asian Americans Living in Poverty

Illustrations by Jing Li

Asian Americans are often portrayed as economically and educationally successful.

In reality, about one-in-ten Asian Americans live in poverty. Asian Americans also have the most income inequality of any major racial or ethnic group in the United States.

Without closely examining the diversity of Asian American experiences, it’s easy to miss the distinct stories of Asian Americans living with economic hardship.

To understand more about this population, Pew Research Center conducted 18 focus groups in 12 languages to explore the stories and experiences of Asian Americans living in poverty.

Table of Contents

Of the 24 million Asians living in the United States, about 2.3 million live in poverty . Many are working to overcome the economic hardships they encounter and achieve their American dream. But they face challenges along the way, from Asian immigrants grappling with language barriers to U.S.-born Asians navigating pathways to success.

In February 2023, Pew Research Center conducted 18 focus groups with adult participants from 11 Asian origin groups in different regions across the U.S. These are among the most likely Asian origin groups to experience economic hardship in the U.S. Focus groups included those whose approximate family income is at or below 140%-250% of the 2022 federal poverty line, depending on their location. Accompanying these focus group findings are results from a Pew Research Center survey about the hardships and dreams of Asians living in poverty, conducted from July 2022 to January 2023.

Some common themes that focus group participants shared include day-to-day financial difficulties, assumptions by others that they do not need help because they are Asian, and the importance of financial security in achieving the American dream.

Related:   1 in 10: Redefining the Asian American Dream (Short Film)

Focus groups also reveal that Asian Americans’ experiences with economic hardship differ by whether they were born in the U.S. or outside the country. Some immigrants not only experience difficulties making ends meet, but also face challenges that come with living in a new, unfamiliar country. These include learning English, navigating daily life in a new place and finding a stable job.

Even though U.S.-born Asians grew up in this country and speak English, they talk about the challenges of understanding what it takes to succeed in America. This includes getting the “right” education, getting access to the “right” knowledge and knowing the “right” people to succeed.

The findings in this data essay reveal what participants shared about their experiences with economic hardship, overcoming challenges, and their views of the American dream and social mobility in America.

The terms Asians and Asian Americans are used interchangeably throughout this data essay to refer to those who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

The terms living in poverty, living near or below the federal poverty line and living with economic hardship are used interchangeably throughout this essay to refer to adults whose family income is close to or below the 2022 federal poverty line.

• For results on Asian adults from the focus groups, this refers to adults whose approximate family income is at or below 140%-250% of the federal poverty line. Thresholds varied by focus group recruitment locations to account for differences in the cost of living.
• For results on Asian adults from the survey , this refers to adults whose approximate family income falls at or below 100% of the federal poverty line.
• For data on the total U.S. Asian population from the U.S. Census Bureau , this refers to all Asian Americans whose family income is at or below 100% of the federal poverty line.

The terms federal poverty line and poverty line are used interchangeably to refer to the federal poverty guidelines published yearly by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The term U.S. born refers to people born in 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

The term immigrant refers to people who were born outside the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

Asian Americans and financial struggles

Financial difficulties are part of many Asian Americans’ day-to-day lives, according to the 2022-23 survey. Asian adults were asked if they had experienced any of the following financial challenges in the past 12 months: gotten food from a food bank or a charitable organization, lost their health insurance, had problems paying for their rent or mortgage, had trouble paying for medical care for themselves or their family, had trouble paying their bills, or been unable to save money for emergencies.

“It got really bad to the point where a simple bowl of rice, we weren’t even able to afford that. So there were times where a bowl of rice would be a meal for all three meals, or we just simply did not eat.” NOLAN , FILM PARTICIPANT

The most common financial difficulty experienced is being unable to save for emergencies. More than half of Asian adults living in poverty (57%) said this had happened to them. By comparison, fewer Asian adults living above the poverty line (40%) said this.

Note: “Asian adults living in poverty” refers to survey respondents whose approximate family income is at or below 100% of the federal poverty line. Share of respondents who didn’t offer an answer or answered “no” not shown.

Source: Survey of Asian American adults conducted July 5, 2022-Jan. 27, 2023. “The Hardships and Dreams of Asian Americans Living in Poverty”

Some focus group participants shared how challenging it was for them to save because of their earnings and their family needs. Participants also talked about the urgency they feel to save for their children and retirement:

“I feel a bit helpless [about my financial situation]. … I don’t want to be in debt. I have to save money to raise my kids, but I don’t have money to save.”

–Immigrant man of Korean origin in early 30s (translated from Korean)

“[I save money] to go to Pakistan. Because I have four children … I needed five or six tickets, in case my husband traveled with us, and it required a lot of money. We used to save for one whole year, and when we were back from Pakistan, we were usually empty-handed. Then the cycle started again.”

–Immigrant woman of Pakistani origin in late 40s (translated from Urdu)

“You’re not going to work forever. No one is going to work forever. You want to have savings … for your rent [or] in case of medical bills [if] something happens. [You] might as well [save for] some trips down the while when you [can] travel still. But you’re not going to be working at 80 years old, are you?”

–U.S.-born man of Chinese origin in early 40s

“We were all four of us in one apartment, four siblings, plus the parents, so that’s six people in a house, which was very, very cramped.” SABA , FILM PARTICIPANT

Other common difficulties for Asian Americans living near or below the poverty line include having trouble paying their bills (42%), needing to get food from a food bank or a charitable organization (38%) and having problems paying their rent or mortgage (33%), the survey found. Smaller shares of Asian adults living above the poverty line say they experienced difficulties paying their bills (17%), got food from a food bank or a charity (6%) or had trouble paying their rent or mortgage (11%).

These findings were echoed in our focus groups, where participants recalled the stress and tension their families felt when things like this happened to them:

“My dad lost his car a couple of times. There was this one time where I remember it was nighttime. All of a sudden, a cop comes over to our home [with another person]. … And my dad was forced to give up his car to this stranger … because, I don’t know, he wasn’t paying off the car or something. And it was very humiliating, and my brothers wanted to get physical with that person because he was acting very arrogantly. My dad was able to eventually pay back the car and somehow get it back. But there were many times when we might not have had a roof over our heads.”

–U.S.-born man of Pakistani origin in late 20s

Asian immigrants face challenges navigating life and employment in the U.S.

Immigrant and U.S.-born Asians experience economic hardship in different ways. Asian immigrants in the focus groups discussed how a lack of English proficiency, navigating transportation and getting a good job all shape their experiences with economic hardship.

“I felt sad about life, didn’t know the language, didn’t know the roads. I had no friends, so I felt very sad.” PHONG , FILM PARTICIPANT (TRANSLATED FROM VIETNAMESE)

For example, not knowing English when they first arrived in the country created extra challenges when using local transportation systems and meeting basic daily life needs such as shopping for groceries:

“When we were very young, the most difficult thing we faced [after coming to the U.S.] was not being able to speak the language. Unless you lived in those times, you wouldn’t know. We didn’t know how to buy food. … We didn’t know the language and there was no interpreter available. … I didn’t know how to take the bus, I didn’t know where to go, or to which place they were taking me to school. When we were asked to go to the classroom, we didn’t know where to go. … There was no other way, because there was no communication.”

–Immigrant woman of Hmong origin in late 50s (translated from Hmong)

Language barriers also brought extra hurdles for Asian immigrants in the job market. Some focus group participants said it was hard to explain their skills to potential employers in English effectively, even if they had the relevant education or skills for the job and had learned English before they immigrated:

“After coming [to the U.S.], there were many problems to face, first … the language problem. We have read English … but we are not used to speaking. … We also had education … but since we can’t explain ourselves in English – what we can do, what we know … we are getting rejected [from jobs] as we cannot speak. … Another problem was that I had a child. My child was small. I could not go to work leaving him. At that time, my husband was working. He also had the same thing – he had education, but he could not get a good job because of the language. [As another participant] said, we had to work below the minimum wage.”

–Immigrant woman of Bangladeshi origin in late 30s (translated from Bengali)

Not wanting to be a burden influenced life choices of many U.S.-born participants

For many U.S.-born focus group participants, concerns about being a burden to their families shaped their childhoods and many of their life decisions:

“It’s difficult to talk to [my parents] because you grew up here and it’s just totally different from them growing up in Vietnam. … It’s the same like what [another participant] was saying, when you take off the burden to your parents, right? So I dropped out of college, just because I didn’t want them paying anymore. I just didn’t think that I was going to do or be anything in college, right? So I would rather work. So I started taking responsibility of my own and you start working really hard and you getting out of the house and helping them pay for bills.”

–U.S.-born man of Vietnamese origin in mid-40s

“My family’s struggling. Is education more important, [or] is working more important? I really felt that growing up because a lot of my friends, education – going to college and going to a techno school – wasn’t really on their radar, it wasn’t really something on their plan. I think talking to a lot of the folks and a lot of my friends during their time, they felt like they had to grow up to provide for their family or for you to find some type of income to kind of help their family. And so that really drove the direction of at least one of my friends, or a lot of my friends.”

–U.S.-born man of Hmong origin in mid-30s

Some U.S.-born focus group participants said that when reflecting on their childhoods, they could see the financial burden they had on their families in a way they did not realize as a child:

“At a certain point you become very aware of how much of a financial burden you are. You don’t ask for anything you want. Like, you don’t ask for prom. You don’t ask to join clubs. You don’t ask to go on field trips, things like that. You just know that it’s going to cause so much drain on your parents.”

–U.S.-born woman of Vietnamese origin in mid-20s

“[My parents] had like a lot of responsibilities, like … giving money back to their father, and then their sisters and brothers, helping them out back [in Pakistan]. … [My father] had to support us and then send money back constantly there. I didn’t know that until now, basically. … We would hardly see him. Maybe like on Sunday, we would see him a couple of hours. But it was on the weekdays, we would hardly see our father. He was always working.”

–U.S.-born woman of Pakistani origin in early 30s

Overcoming economic challenges

The survey found that when Asian adults living in poverty have needed help with bills, housing, food or seeking a job, about six-in-ten (61%) say they’ve turned to family or friends.

Some focus group participants mentioned that families and friends in their ethnic community were a great source of financial help. For others, the limited size of their ethnic community in the U.S. posed obstacles in obtaining assistance.

“My dad arrived in the U.S. when he was 26 years old, and I’m now 29 years old. … I have seven siblings and my parents who support me. And my parents didn’t have that, they didn’t have their parents to support them.” TANG , FILM PARTICIPANT

“It was very difficult during [my] study [at university]. … I had a scholarship, most of the part was scholarship; however, I had to pay something between $10,000 and $15,000 per semester. And I had to eat, I had to pay rent, I had to do everything. At the same time, there are many other things too, aren’t there? And there was always a stress about money. This semester is over now, how do I pay for the next? I had no clarity about what to do and not to do. In that situation, I approached those friends studying there or who came there a little earlier and were working to borrow money. … I [was] offered help by some friends and in finding a job and being helped for my needs.”

–Immigrant man of Nepalese origin in early 40s (translated from Nepali)

“We didn’t have a large Burmese community to ask for such help. It was not yet present. As we had no such community, when we had just arrived, we told close friends, got directions and went to ask for help.”

–Immigrant woman of Burmese origin in late 40s (translated from Burmese)

However, not all Asians living with economic hardship have asked for or received help. In the focus groups, participants shared why they or their families sometimes did not do so or felt hesitant. Fear of gossip and shame were mentioned multiple times:

“[I experienced financial difficulties after I first arrived in the U.S.] because I came here as a student. … It’s because I had to pay monthly rent and I paid for living expenses. I felt a little pressured when the monthly payment date approached. I had no choice but to ask my parents in Korea for money even as an adult, so I felt a sense of shame.”

–Immigrant woman of Korean origin in early 40s (translated from Korean)

“My cousin will [help me financially] without judgment. But, like, my aunt and elders – if it gets back to them [that I asked for help], it’s going to for sure come with judgment. And if I could figure it out myself, I will take the way without judgment.”

“To add on to what [another participant] said, if you go to the community [for help] or whatever, you know, by tomorrow everybody’s going to know it’s your problem.”

–U.S.-born woman of Pakistani origin in early 40s

Immigrants who came to the U.S. because of conflict are more familiar with government aid programs

Asian immigrants come to this country for a variety of reasons. In the focus groups, immigrant participants who came to the U.S. due to conflict or war in their origin countries referenced government assistance programs more often than those who came for other reasons.

This reflects a broader pattern among Asian immigrants overall: Those who came because of conflict or persecution have turned to federal, state or local governments for help with living expenses or employment more often than immigrants who came for economic or educational opportunities, according to the survey.

Focus group participants reflected on differences in the amount of government help available. Sometimes, they expressed a sense of unequal treatment:

“Vietnamese have this program where people got sponsored because of the war. So for other Asians, they feel that we are more privileged. Because from what I know, the Koreans and the Japanese, they must have money in order to come to America. As for us, we can come here through the refugee program, we can come here through the political program. They feel that we got more preferential treatment than other Asians in that regard.”

–Immigrant man of Vietnamese origin in early 40s (translated from Vietnamese)

“During the pandemic, I had to go through housing assistance and everything [to pay my rent]. Something like that with EBT [Electronic Benefits Transfer], how they send you stimulus checks. Korea doesn’t have any of that stuff.”

–U.S.-born woman of Korean origin in late 40s

“I think my community is relatively traditional. Because 20 years ago, we went straight to Chinatown fresh off the plane [after immigrating]. I still remember being in [the local] hospital, lots of social workers were there to help out, including with a medical insurance card, and applying for service, most importantly medical insurance. We all went to [the same] street. We relied on other Chinese people.”

–Immigrant man of Chinese origin in late 30s (translated from Mandarin)

Family ties contribute to increased awareness of government programs. For example, when asked how they learned about using government programs for help, some U.S.-born participants said:

“[I learned about the government programs from] my parents. I had to translate for them.”

–U.S.-born woman of Cambodian origin in mid-30s

“I was working at [a smoothie shop], and I was 17 and a half. … My college loan was like $50,000 [and I was] making $12.50 [an hour], how the hell am I supposed to be paying that month to month? Because my month-to-month was damn near $300, $500. My $12.50 an hour does not even cover for it, any of it, whatsoever. And, you know, me [having] been kicked out of home … I was living with my aunt. … I don’t want to burden her. So I had to go and ask her. She told me, ‘Hey, you should go and apply for food stamps.’”

–U.S.-born woman of Laotian origin in mid-30s

U.S.-born and immigrant focus group participants hold different views on education’s role in achieving a better future

“My friend, he started out at internship … I was too naive. I was laughing at the time, like, ‘Man you spend your time? You took buses there every day? No pay?’ … I just didn’t know the big picture behind [it]. I wish I could plan for [it] just like how they did.” PHUOC , FILM PARTICIPANT

Reflecting on what could lead to success and achieving the American dream, focus group participants who were born in or grew up in the U.S. emphasized the value of getting connected to the “right” opportunities:

“[You don’t have] to go to school to be successful. I mean, they say there are people who are book smart and just people who are street smart, you know. [As long as you] grow up and you know the right people … networking on the right people to get into things. Or, you know, the right people to do the right things to get to where you want to be in life.”

–U.S.-born man of Hmong origin in late 20s

Other participants said it would have helped if their families had a deeper understanding of how the education system prepares them for good careers:

“I feel if my parents were educated and they could have guided me in the right direction [for college] – although, they tried their best. I’m not blaming them. But, you know, if I had someone of a more academic background who knew the system … I will try my best to help my daughter out in college or help her choose what her major is going to be. [My parents couldn’t provide] that kind of help that really helped me in choosing my major. … And so I think just the background that we come from was not the best – or not having the full grasp of this system. … Versus someone who’s had parents here for multiple years, and their parents are now telling them, like, ‘Hey, this is not the right decision for you. Try doing this. This will be better in the long run.’”

–U.S.-born man of Pakistani origin in early 30s

Some also said firsthand knowledge of how to invest and how the U.S. financial system works would have helped:

“[In] the newer generation, we have access to learn all the things we need to, right? [I watch videos] that talk about, like, ‘These are the things you need to do in order to be financially successful. You need to invest your money, get into stocks,’ and stuff like that. And I know that not even 1% of my Hmong community knows anything about that stuff. … So I think we can be more financially successful, including myself, if we were to look more deeply into those things.”

–U.S.-born woman of Hmong origin in late 20s

“If you’re educated and know how, like, let’s say investments work, if you know how that’s done and then you apply it actually going through [someone] like investors or even stockbrokers, then you’ll see the fruits of your labor, or at least experience that, as opposed to not even having the knowledge or even the experience to begin with.”

–U.S.-born man of Cambodian origin in mid-30s

Some participants shared that even when they have some knowledge of financial institutions, they feel the system is working against them:

“I think systematic racism [is a barrier to achieving the American dream]. … I mean, if you own a car, you got to get the bank to approve you. … And they charge people with, like, no credit the highest fee, the most percentage, which are a lot of the folks [like] us trying to achieve the American dream. And then we go to neighborhoods that have the highest crime rate, we also have the most premiums. … And so I think that, one, we’re paying a lot more with much less … the system [was] set up well before minorities, and I think we’re pretty much going to fall behind.”

Many focus group participants also see the value of education, especially a college one, in leading toward a better future and achieving the American dream:

“[When I think of the American dream, it means] if you work hard enough, you can succeed. … You can get an education or a higher education. Then you have so many choices here and exposure to so many ideas and concepts that you wouldn’t otherwise.”

“The bachelor’s degree was important to me in the sense that I needed it so that I could apply for the jobs I wanted. … I guess it made things a bit easier.” THET , FILM PARTICIPANT (TRANSLATED FROM BURMESE)

But this sentiment resonated more with immigrant participants than those born in the U.S.:

“It is the education and the relevant knowledge I think that our Hmong people must have. We’ve been living in this country for the last 45 years. I think that to live in this country, it is very important for some people. I do not think everyone has a ‘lawyer’ or a ‘doctor’ in their house. If it happens, maybe we will reach our goal and the poverty will gradually disappear from our lives.”

–Immigrant woman of Hmong origin in mid-30s (translated from Hmong)

“I think if I obtain any degree, I would perhaps be able to do something.”

Assumptions about Asians hurt their chances of overcoming challenges

Participants shared that other people’s assumptions about Asians complicate their experience of living with economic hardship. Asians are often characterized as a “model minority” and portrayed as educationally and financially successful when compared with other groups.

Some participants shared how the assumption that all Asians are doing well hurt their ability to seek help:

“I have a daughter … she’s the only Asian in class. … Everybody tends to think, ‘She’s Asian; she’s so smart; her mommy has money. So you got to invite her to your birthday party because her mom is rich. [Her] mom will buy you a present.’ … I’m not rich, but because we’re Asian … she’s invited to all these parties.”

–U.S.-born woman of Hmong origin in early 30s

“What I can assume is that outside of our community, especially at the government level, [including] state level and central federal level here, we are missing out or not eligible for benefits. In their opinion, we are rich, no matter if we are working or not. [They may think] our stories may not be genuine. They may think we are making up a story [if we apply for benefits].”

Striving for the American dream

Freedom was a recurring theme in how focus group participants define their American dream. Two aspects were mentioned. The first was freedom from debt and stress over making ends meet, such as paying for everyday basic needs including rent and food. The second was the ability to make life choices freely without financial constraints, enabling them to live the life they aspire to.

Reaching the American dream

Half of Asians living near or below the federal poverty line say they believe they have achieved the American dream or are on their way to achieving it, the survey found. This includes 15% who say they have achieved it and 36% who say they are on their way. By comparison, among those living above the poverty line, 27% say they’ve achieved the American dream, and another 46% say they are on their way.

“Before I came to America, I had never heard of the American dream. … But because I was able to at least bring my son along, not only my life but also his education has improved significantly.” THEIN , FILM PARTICIPANT (TRANSLATED FROM BURMESE)

Among focus group participants, many were optimistic about reaching the American dream for themselves:

“[To me, the American dream is] the opportunity to come to America. I’ve learned a lot after reaching here. And I’ve been able to help my parents and relatives. Despite facing some troubles here, I’ve [provided them a] little financial assistance. I would’ve been unable to help them if I had been in Bhutan.”

–Immigrant woman of Bhutanese origin in late 40s (translated from Dzongkha)

Some participants were also hopeful that the next generation can achieve their American dream, even when they themselves are not there yet:

“When I think about the American dream, I look back at myself, because I belong to the first generation that came to this country. We all started very late. I know that this country will help you, but really it will not be easy for us. … What I think will help me to be happy is to ‘reach the American dream.’ If I can’t achieve it, then I will support my children so that they can reach the dream and I will be happy with them. I will give my children money to help them study.”

“If I can’t get [the American dream] for myself, it is okay. No matter how I am, I’ve already reached half of my life. But I’ve done as much as I can do for [my children], so my responsibility is done. If it’s their turn, I believe they will be able to do all that I couldn’t. I believe it.”

“I would like to own a home one day. And at this rate, and like many of my peers, that’s not a reachable goal right now. I don’t see it being a reachable goal for me for a very, very, very long time.” TANG , FILM PARTICIPANT

Still, the survey found that 47% of Asian adults living in poverty say the American dream is out of reach for them, higher than the share among those living above the poverty line (26%). Not all Asians living in poverty feel the same way about achieving the American dream, with U.S.-born Asians in the focus groups being less optimistic about reaching the American dream than immigrant Asians.

“In a certain era with the U.S. and the immigrants coming, the American dream [was] you come, you study, you do this, you can climb up the ladder, etc., etc. That was the big American dream. And I think there was a period where that was possible. Not any longer.”

Others also shared worries about their prospects of reaching the American dream because of different immigration histories and economic concerns such as inflation:

“I think I was conditioned to think too small to have the American dream. … Vietnamese Americans came over here at a very specific time. … There were Chinese Americans that came here like centuries ago, and they had the time to build generational wealth. We know that Vietnamese people came here in the ’70s. That’s not enough time to grow generational wealth.”

–U.S.-born woman of Vietnamese origin in late 20s

“I have kids. … They’re spoiled. … Now with inflation, houses are more expensive now [than 10, 20 years ago], right? Let’s say 20 years from now, when they buy a house, [the American dream] is going to be unachievable, you know what I mean? Like, unless they are a TikTok star or an entertainer or some kind. … [It’s] going to be tough.”

–U.S.-born man of Chinese origin in late 30s

Freedom from debt

For many participants, being debt-free is important to their vision of the American dream and promotes a life with more financial stability and independence:

“[If I could choose one dream in America, it would be to have] no debt. … When buying something, they always say, ‘Be careful, or you’ll be in debt.’ … And that is what got stuck in my throat.”

–Immigrant woman of Laotian origin in mid-30s (translated from Lao)

“[I haven’t achieved the American dream because I’m not] debt-free, you know, just trying to have extra money, instead of living paycheck to paycheck.”

“[My dream in America is] to be independent, for example, we always lived with the money of mom and dad. One is to be independent when you come here. Let me earn so much money that if I go to the store and buy something, I don’t even have to look at the price tag. That [is] my dream.”

–Immigrant woman of Nepalese origin in early 40s (translated from Nepali)

Participants shared that being debt-free also means having less stress and worry about making ends meet so that they can have extra resources and bandwidth to help their families:

“[The most important thing to achieving the American dream is] being debt-free and having real estate and income steadiness. … If you have rent income, you’re not trading in your time for money, so you have real estate. … You’re not stressing, you have time for your kids more, and your family. You’re probably a little bit happier.”

–Immigrant man of Cambodian origin in mid-20s

“The main thing is that I want to fully support my father and mother, and that I don’t have to worry about [how] I will support myself, or how I will pay my house rent. This is my number one.”

–Immigrant woman of Bangladeshi origin in late 20s (translated from Bengali)

For others, having a stable job is an important step to reaching the American dream:

“I want to have a job, and if I have a job, I’ll have money. I’m only working three and a half days a week right now, and I want to work more. I want more jobs the most, right now. I don’t need anything in America. Just a job.”

Freedom to dream

Focus group participants mentioned having the financial ability to not only meet their basic needs, but also pursue their dreams. Asians born in the U.S. mentioned the freedom to chase one’s aspirations without financial constraints more often than immigrants. Regardless of nativity, the ability to live the life they want is fundamental to many focus group participants’ definitions of the American dream:

“[When] everyone around you is immigrants and you’re all just trying to survive, the only thing you’re trained to think about is survival. But you’re not thinking about investment. Like, when you grow older and you start thinking, ‘Okay, I need to spend money to make money,’ that’s when you start thinking bigger. Yeah, I’m not just thinking about like having one home, I want 10 homes.”

“[Financial] stability is you have nothing but you could survive. [Financial] freedom is you have enough that you can do anything you want. That’s my financial freedom.”

“As it was so hard at that time … what motivated you to keep going and work so hard?” “My strength, my mindset was I wanted to earn money so that my children could have a bright future.” PHUOC AND PHONG , FILM PARTICIPANTS (TRANSLATED FROM VIETNAMESE)

The American dream, to some focus group participants, is about more than financial achievements. Finding happiness and helping others, ultimately leading them to live the life they desire, are key parts of their American dream.

“I want to thank [another participant] for saying ‘self-actualization,’ because personally I think it’s really powerful to be able to know what you want. Because then you’ll know what kind of job you want, what kind of house you want, whether you want to be in politics or not. Like, loving yourself and understanding yourself to your core, then that will be the [deciding factor].”

–Immigrant man of Cambodian origin in early 40s

“I think for me [the American dream] is that there is a house for me, with no interest, I do not owe any loan, my parents could live there comfortably, their struggle is over, and also I have enough … to be able to do something for Pakistan later [in life], God willing.”

–Immigrant woman of Pakistani origin in mid-20s (translated from Urdu)

“[Some people define success as having] lots of money, kids, cars, right? But that’s not really … what I would consider success. Success is something that – does it make you happy? … Are you happy every day going to work? Does it make you happy? When you come home, are you happy?”

About this project

Pew Research Center designed these focus groups and survey questions to better understand the experiences of Asian Americans living with economic hardship. By including participants who are among the Asian origin groups most likely to experience poverty, the focus groups aimed to capture, in their own words, their experiences and challenges in America today. The discussions in these groups may or may not resonate with all Asians living in poverty in the United States.

The project is part of a broader research portfolio studying the diverse experiences of Asians living in the U.S.

Survey and demographic analysis of Asians living in poverty

For a comprehensive examination of Asian adults’ experiences with economic hardship from Pew Research Center’s 2022-23 survey of Asian Americans, as well as a demographic analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 American Community Survey, read “Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty.”

Videos throughout this data essay illustrate what focus group participants discussed. Individuals recorded in these video clips did not participate in the focus groups but were selected based on similar demographic characteristics and thematically relevant stories.

Watch the short film related to the themes in the data essay.

Methodological note

This multi-method research project examines the many facets of living with economic hardship among Asian Americans today.

The qualitative analysis is based on 18 focus groups conducted in February 2023 in 12 languages with 144 participants across four locations. Recruited participants had an approximate family income that is at or below 140%-250% of the federal poverty line, depending on the location. More information about the focus group methodology and analysis can be found in the focus group methodology .

The survey analysis included in this data essay is based on 561 Asian adults living near or below the poverty line from Pew Research Center’s 2022-23 survey of Asian Americans, the largest nationally representative survey of Asian American adults of its kind to date, conducted in six languages. For more details, refer to the survey methodology . For questions used in this analysis, refer to the topline questionnaire .

Acknowledgments

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The Center’s Asian American portfolio was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Asian American Foundation; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; the Doris Duke Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura.

We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thought leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this survey possible.

The strategic communications campaign used to promote the research was made possible with generous support from the Doris Duke Foundation.

This is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of a number of individuals and experts at Pew Research Center and outside experts.

• In this data essay, definitions of “living near or below the poverty line” and related terms differ between survey respondents and focus group participants. Refer to the terminology box for details. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivered Saturday mornings

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Poverty in America Rural and Urban Difference (Education) Research Paper

Introduction, review of literature, theoretical framework, reference list, research question/problem.

Government pays more attention to education in poor urban regions than in poor rural regions that leads to misbalance in the level of education in poverty rural and urban areas of the United States of America.

Background of the problem

The problem is not new as much research has been conducted in the sphere of urban and rural poverty areas. The number of children who attend school and live in poverty is too high. Research shows that the number of programs created in the sphere of education have different impact on poverty rural and urban education. Defining poverty as a notion, the World Band states the following,

poverty is hunger. Poverty is a lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not being able to go to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation, and freedom (in Chen & Sapsford, 2005, p. 97)

A number of reforms have been developed both for poverty rural and urban regions, however, the misbalance between urban and rural poverty education can be followed. Government focuses more on urban regions forgetting about rural ones (Poverty Education in Rural and Urban Areas, 2011).

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to compare and contrast governmental impact on poverty rural and urban regions of the USA in the sphere of education. To make sure that the research is objective, the following criteria should be considered, financial support, developed educational programs, students’ satisfaction with studying, social work with children and their parents, infrastructure and technical support. Having covered these issues, we will be able to draw a conclusion about the level of the governmental support of poverty rural and urban areas.

Scope of the Study

A research is going to be conducted in the rural and urban areas of the South Dakota. These regions have been chosen not by chance. We tried to find the state in the USA where the level of urban population and the rural experience financial problems. The research is going to be concentrated on these two regions to make sure that the results we get are concrete and the possibility of the error due to high number of subjects is reduced to minimum.

Significance of the Study

The research is going to show the level of governmental concern about the influence of rural and urban poverty on education in two regions. The research will help draw conclusions about the necessity for balancing the governmental awareness of the problems in poverty urban and rural areas.

These conclusions can be used for developing the strategies aimed at balancing the support of poverty urban and rural areas with the purpose of improving social situation in the country and reducing the rate of poor people in the society as bad education leads to the increase of the poverty rates.

High level of knowledge is a guarantee of successful future and prosperity. Good education is the first step on the way to happy future not only on the level of the family but also on the governmental level. The understanding of the needs of the poverty American rural and urban schools is the first step on the way to reforming the system of elementary and secondary education.

Poverty in rural and urban areas: General information

Poverty is the disaster of the whole mankind and families in different countries of the USA face numerous problems. Most of the problems are similar, however, depending whether rural or urban area is considered the priorities and the problems may be different. Considering the differences between rural poverty and urban poverty in general, it should be mentioned that the reasons and the problems people face are various.

Poor people in urban areas are more concerned about criminal situation, drugs consumption, education, numerous problems with kinds, and infrastructure. Rural poverty problems are limited to drugs consumption, unemployment, education, taxes and infrastructure (Ganong, L., et al., 1991).

Therefore, the problems connected with drugs, education and infrastructure bother people both in poverty rural and urban areas, while other issues are inherent in each of the discussed areas separately. It is obvious that the needs of people in rural and urban arias are different. However, implementing educational reforms and providing assistance to schools in various regions, government does not pay attention to the specific needs of the region, basis their considerations on the general statistics.

The problems poor urban areas face are connected with the growth of population, as some scholars state that growth of population in urban area is provided by means of the movement of poor rural people to cities which does not influence poverty rate positively (Adelman & Jaret, 1999).

Much research has been conducted in the sphere of poverty in rural and urban areas, and most of them show that rural America is poorer that urban one (Satterthwaite, 2002). However, Zimmerman, Ham, and Frank, (2008) managed to prove that products and other things related to the cost of living are not chipper in villages, as rural areas are remote from appropriate transportation system and experienced workers.

Urban arias usually offer jobs which do not require high knowledge and high professionalism level (Hines, 2002). Nevertheless, according to Schroth, Pankake, Fullwood, and Gates (2003) a rural district “has higher poverty rate than urban areas” (p. 13). It can be concluded that here in no specific knowledge in the relation to this problem and additional research is required.

In spite of those differences, rural areas are less financed in comparison to urban ones, only 9% of rural district budget is covered with federal funds, while in the cities the percentage comprises 11% (Provasnik, et al., 2007; Roellke, 2003). Such differentiation in financing is connected with the conviction that those who live in rural areas have lower demands and need less financial support. However, this conviction is false.

Educational Issues Rural and Urban Poor Areas Face

Discussing particular educational issues in the relation to poverty in different regions of the USA, it should be mentioned that poverty is one of the reasons why students drop out schools. This problem is urgent for both rural and urban areas. However, Huang and Howley (1991) state that the financial situation in rural areas is worse due to the differences in tax policies and policies in the relation to financially disadvantaged students.

A poverty gap between rural and urban population is also significant (Huang & Howley, 1991). Rural schools, being isolated communities, lack “the people, skills, and money to support schools, libraries, community centers, child care centers, and public transportation systems that poor families need to change their lives” (Nadel, & Sagawa, 2002, p. 12). Urban schools have better conditions, and they are usually supplied with better technologies.

It is obvious that rural and urban poverty areas face similar problems as the poverty definition is the same, rural schools have more needs, additional ones. Rural students’ achievements are lower due to the absence of the appropriate teachers in rural schools (one of the main reasons is low salary). Having similar financial support in the percentage correlation, rural schools spend more on different operations.

Costs on special education and transportation are higher in the rural area. In general, per-students costs in rural area are higher. The absence of the adequate financial support leads to “providing fewer programs and services, such as alternative schools, vocational programs, a wide variety of high school classes, extended day programs, and programs for special needs students” (Hines, 2002, p. 195) in rural schools.

The level of education in rural school is lower due to this problem. Highly skilled and experienced teachers do not want to go to rural areas because of bad conditions, lack of technical support and low salaries (Bauch, 2001).

Parental involvement plays great role in students’ learning. A research has shown that one of the family members works in urban poor families, while in rural poor families two parents have to work.

The conclusion is obvious, parents in urban poor families have more opportunities to follow children’s educational level that in rural areas (Masika, Haan, & Baden, 1997). The dependence of the poverty rate from the dependence on the family composition has been explored. The importance of this research is that family composition has a particular bearing on poverty in the region.

Thus, 75% of rural area are headed by both family members and on 15 % are female headed. 16.6% of families are poor if they are male-headed and 37.1% are poor if families are family headed. This tendency can be easily explained, as “the higher poverty rate for female-headed families is attributed to lower labor force participation rates, shorter average work weeks, and lower earnings” (Rural poverty at a glance, 2004, p. 3).

One of the main problems rural schools face is that government in most cases consider their needs coming out of the data collected about urban schools. However, as it has already been mentioned above, the needs of rural and urban schools may differ greatly. Furthermore, the policies created for rural and urban schools are similar, but the lawmakers should consider differences as well (Bryant Jr., 2010). Rural and urban schools are different in many things, connected both with financial and nonfinancial issues.

Considering the policies the government implements in the relation to educational system and contrary to educational needs, it is important to remember The No Child Left behind (NCLB) Act (2001). Meier and Wood (2004) reviewed this act and it turned out that the government did not only refer to the needs of the schools, but also harmed those students who lived below the poverty level.

Both urban and rural districts were impacted negatively. One of the parts of the law made teachers confirm their qualifications. Referring to the rural schools, it should be mentioned that many teachers in rural schools multiple subjects, and it seems almost impossible for them to prove themselves ‘highly qualified’ in three or even four subjects (Books, 2004, p. 117).

Description of Theory Based upon Literature Review

The consideration of the sources devoted to the problem of urban and rural areas, poverty and education has lead to the conclusion that here is no one opinion about the differences in poverty in rural and urban areas. The absence of the common opinion about the problems which exists in rural and urban educational systems also creates a number of problems.

The necessity for this research has been created because of the absence of the understanding why poor rural and urban areas should be treated differently while creating educational programs, implementing financial support, measuring student satisfaction with studying, applying social policies and programs for helping families below poverty rate, and offering schools infrastructure and technical support.

The literature review helped us understand that continuing treating urban and rural poverty areas similarly government and other power structures are not aware of the differences in problems and need rural and urban poverty areas have.

Offering similar financial support, and sometimes even lower that in urban area, government limits the opportunities in the rural districts. If to consider the problem globally, it is possible to understand that the low literacy in rural aria automatically reduces the agricultural potential of the country. It is not enough just to grow products, it is important to evaluate the market needs, calculate the profitability and make all possible to automate the working process and reduce the costs.

Operationalized Definition of Variables

According to Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification (2009), urban area is the area which “consists of densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people” and “at least 35,000 people in a UA must live in an area that is not part of a military reservation” (p. A-22). The territory which does not fit these criteria is referred to rural area (Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification, 2009).

Financial support is defined as the budget costs the government planned to spend on financing educational sector.

Educational programs are the recent acts and laws which have been accepted in the country and referred to the educational sphere.

Students’ satisfaction is statistical notion. It is going to be measured with the rate of students who either drop out schools or have too low progress in studies.

Social work with children and their parents means the social policies directed at supporting poor families.

Infrastructure is the number of buildings necessary for appropriate learning (i.e. school building, library, classes and other rooms).

Technical support presupposes the existence of the computer classes and the availability of the Internet.

The level of education in the rural area is much lower than in urban area because government does not pay much attention to the appropriate financial support, aimed educational programs, students’ satisfaction with studying, social work with children and their parents, necessary infrastructure and technical support, but implements similar facilities for both rural and urban arias on the basis of the statistical data and other considerations taken from the urban sources.

Data Collection Technique

Having set a goal to confirm the idea that poor rural arias are implemented with worse support from the side of the government, we have chosen to conduct a research with the reference to a number of issues. Each of these issues should be checked separately as well as the impact it makes on the level of education in rural poor regions. Statistical information and government reports should be considered in the chosen regions to check the financial support government spent within the latest 2 years (209 and 2009 should be considered).

The latest government educational programs should be reviewed with the purpose to state their impact on the rural and urban schools. The data should be collected about the main influential measurements (in the comparison with the present or previous acts).

To measure the student’ satisfaction with the learning process, the statistical data about students’ achievements should be collected. Furthermore, the interview should be provided with volunteers. Students should be offered questions about their wishes and needs. The revision of the schools’ infrastructure and technical support should be implemented. It is important to note each object.

Research Design

The statistical information is going to be collected before the interview to understand which problems students face and what challenges a school tries to overcome. After the statistical information is collected, we are going to conduct an interview and measure the received results.

Sampling Procedures

The research should be conducted in the schools of South Dakota. Five schools from rural and urban areas are going to be selected on the basis of the statistical information about the welfare of each of the schools. We are going to select the schools from poor regions, where the general income of the population is rather low. Students from these schools are going to be selected on the volunteer basis for interview. Sex, age, ethnicity, and other characteristic features will not be used as the criteria for sampling.

Tools, Measurement, and Analysis

Statistical analysis and interviewing are the main tools for data collection. A survey should be directed at understanding students’ needs and the inability to find what they want at school.

Family problems should also be discussed for measuring the students’ satisfaction with studying and the identifying of the presence/absence of the social work with children and their parents. The results are going to be interpreted and compared and contrasted in the form of a table where it can be seen what urban (rural) schools have and rural (urban) do not have. Measuring the results, we should be objective and fill out the table accurate.

The analysis of the results should be conducted both individually and in complex. First of all, it is important to measure the impact of each of the mentioned variables on the school in each of the poor regions, urban and rural.

Second, the complex analysis should be implemented with the purpose to confirm the hypothesis that financial support, educational programs, students’ satisfaction with studying, social work with children and their parents, necessary infrastructure and technical support are directed at satisfying the needs of poor urban areas ignoring the particular requirements stated by the rural areas in poverty.

Adelman, R. M., & Jaret, C. (1999). Poverty, race, and US metropolitan social and economic structure. Journal of Urban Affai rs, 21(1), 35.

Bauch, P. A. (2001). School-Community Partnerships in Rural Schools: Leadership, Renewal, and a Sense of Place. Peabody Journal of Education , 76(2), 204-221.

Books, S. (2004). Poverty and Schooling in the U.S.: Contexts and Consequences . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bryant Jr., J. A. (2010). Dismantling Rural Stereotypes. Educational Leadership , 68(3), 54.

Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification. (2009). US Census Bureau . Web.

Chen, J. & Sapsford, D. (2005). Global development and poverty reduction: the challenge for international institutions . New York: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ganong, L., et al. (1991). Poverty in America: Rural and urban differences. Department of Human Development and Family Studies. Web.

Hines, P. (2002). Transforming the Rural School Counselor. Theory into Practice , 41(3), 192.

Huang, G., & Howley, C. (1991). Recent Trends in Rural Poverty: A Summary for Educators. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools Charleston WV. Web.

Masika, R., Haan, A, & Baden, S. (1997). Urbanization and urban poverty: A gender analysis. Bridge, 54 , pp. 1-18.

Meier, D., & Wood, G. H. (2004). Many children left behind: how the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools . New York: Beacon Press.

Nadel, W., & Sagawa, S. (2002). America’s forgotten children: Child poverty in rural America . Westport, CT: Save the Children.

No Child Left Behind (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). (2001). US Department of Education . Web.

Poverty Education in Rural and Urban Areas. (2011, May 13). Poverty, education, and the American dream in contemporary rural America final 2011 . Web.

Provasnik, S., et al. (2007). Status of education in rural America . Web.

Roellke, C. (2003). Resource allocation in rural and small schools (ERIC No. ED482323) . Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Rural poverty at a glance. (2004). Rural Development Research, 100, pp. 1-6.

Satterthwaite, D. (2002). The ten and a half myths that may distort the urban policies of governments and international agencies . The 21st Century Urban Scenario: Citizens as Agents of Change . Web.

Schroth, G., Pankake, A., Fullwood, H., & Gates, G. (2001). Rural and Urban America. Rural Special Education Quarterly , 20(1/2), 13.

Zimmerman, J. N., Ham, S., & Frank, S. (2008). Does it or doesn’t it? Geographic differences and the costs of living. Rural Sociology , 73(3), 463-486.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 20). Poverty in America Rural and Urban Difference (Education). https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-in-america-rural-and-urban-difference-education/

"Poverty in America Rural and Urban Difference (Education)." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-in-america-rural-and-urban-difference-education/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Poverty in America Rural and Urban Difference (Education)'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Poverty in America Rural and Urban Difference (Education)." February 20, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-in-america-rural-and-urban-difference-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Poverty in America Rural and Urban Difference (Education)." February 20, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-in-america-rural-and-urban-difference-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Poverty in America Rural and Urban Difference (Education)." February 20, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-in-america-rural-and-urban-difference-education/.

• Rural Poverty in Indonesia
• Poverty in Rural and Urban Areas
• Rural-Urban Migration, Its Causes and Effects
• Marginalization and Poverty of Rural Women
• Rural Development, Economic Inequality and Poverty
• Marginalization of Rural Migrant Workers in China
• Rural Community Development and its Potentials
• Rural–Urban Migration and Youth in Bhutan
• “Urban and Rural Estimates of Poverty: Recent Advances in Spatial Microsimulation in Australia” by Tanton, R, Harding, A, and McNamara, J
• How do Migration and Urbanization Bring About Urban Poverty in Developing Countries?
• Contemporary Political Culture
• Mitch Snyder and the CCNV
• Inequality: Causes and Consequences
• America, the Solution to the World’s Poor Children
• Poverty and Its Effects on Childhood Education

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

1 in 10 Asian Americans live in poverty. Their experiences vary widely, research says

Juliana Kim

People walk through a busy street in Chinatown in New York City. About 11% of Chinese Americans live in poverty, according to a new analysis by the Pew Research Center. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

People walk through a busy street in Chinatown in New York City. About 11% of Chinese Americans live in poverty, according to a new analysis by the Pew Research Center.

A Nepalese immigrant in his early 40s described the stress and uncertainty he felt during college about how to afford rent, food and tuition despite having a scholarship.

A man of Hmong origin in his mid-30s said he struggled with the decision to either attend college or go straight into the workforce to provide for his family.

And a woman of Pakistani descent in her early 30s said she didn't see her father often while growing up because he worked constantly to support their family and other relatives in Pakistan.

These were some of the responses in a new report from the Pew Research Center about the wide variety of experiences among Asian Americans living in poverty, based on 18 focus groups in 12 languages with 144 participants.

The report was part of a set of research published Wednesday to capture Asian Americans in economic hardship on a quantitative and qualitative scale. The project drew from focus groups, as well as census and survey data.

Most Asian Americans say they face discrimination and are often treated as foreigners

Nationally, 1 in 10 people of Asian descent live at or below the poverty line. But the rate was vastly different depending on country of origin, researchers found . For instance, about 6% of Indian Americans live in poverty while the rate is 19% for Burmese Americans.

Through focus groups, researchers also found that the challenges and opinions around poverty for Asian Americans differed based on age and whether they were born in or immigrated to the U.S.

"There are also shared experiences among Asian Americans living in poverty such as day-to-day financial difficulties, assumptions by others that they do not need help because they are Asian, and the importance of financial security in achieving their American dream," said Neil G. Ruiz, who co-authored the set of Pew reports.

Burmese, Hmong and Mongolian Americans experience some of the highest poverty rates

About 17% of Hmong Americans and 16% of Mongolian Americans live at or below the poverty line, according to a Pew analysis of the 2022 American Community Survey.

The rate of poverty was between 10% and 13% across Korean, Malaysian, Laotian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Cambodian groups. The poverty rate for Nepalese, Japanese, Sri Lankan and Filipino American groups was between 6% and 9%.

Places across the U.S. are testing no-strings cash as part of the social safety net

The analysis also found that 26% of all Asians living below the poverty line are located in just three major cities: New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco. High rates of poverty among Asian Americans also exist in Fresno, Calif.; Buffalo, N.Y.; and Pittsburgh, Penn., according to the analysis.

Within major cities, the rate of poverty among Asian groups can vary even further. For example, according to a 2021 report from the New York mayor's office, about 32% of Bangladeshi immigrants and 29% of Pakistani immigrants in the city experienced poverty.

About a fifth of survey respondents said they have never asked for help from family, friends or the government

When it came to finding help with bills, housing, food or jobs, Pew researchers found that 61% of Asian adults living in poverty turned to family or friends.

Nearly half of respondents said they also sought government assistance on a local, state or federal level. Meanwhile, 19% of respondents said they have never asked or received support from the government, nor from religious institutions or community organizations.

Every new mom in this U.S. city is now getting cash aid for a year

Some participants in Pew's focus groups shared that government programs were difficult to access, because they were not proficient in English and the programs were not translated in their native language, according to Ruiz.

He also found that Asian immigrants who were refugees or asylum seekers were more familiar with government assistance than Asians who moved to the U.S. for other reasons, such as educational opportunities.

Asian Americans spoke about not knowing how to save or invest

Fifty-seven percent of Asian adults living in poverty said they were unable to save for emergencies this past year, according to the Pew survey.

In focus groups from this past year, participants shared that part of the issue was simply not having enough money to set aside, according to Ruiz. Another factor was a lack of financial literacy.

"When they are able to save, we heard people just don't know how," he said.

Ruiz added that not knowing how to save or invest was an especially common frustration among focus groups participants who were born in the U.S.

A 2023 survey by JPMorgan Chase found that confidence in reaching retirement goals varied across cultures. While 68% of Indian participants and 59% of Vietnamese respondents said they were confident in saving for retirement, only 35% of Korean participants felt the same.

U.S.-born Asian Americans expressed skepticism that education guarantees success

The role and significance of education was a common theme in focus groups.

While many foreign-born Asian participants believed that education was a key to getting out of poverty, U.S.-born Asians respondents tended to believe that their future depended on the type of education they received, he said.

Affirmative action divided Asian Americans and other people of color. Here's how

"Some people were not necessarily saying a bachelor's degree is the best thing," he added. "But then you did hear about financial education and learning how to invest."

In the focus groups, U.S.-born Asians who could speak English discussed the feeling that education was not enough to succeed, adding that networking and financial literacy played a role, according to Ruiz.