Pulitzer Prize-winning author and journalist David Shipler spoke on his book The Working Poor: Invisible in America as part of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies' Press and Pubic Policy Seminar Series on Monday.
Hoping to dispel the stigma that those who categorically fall below the government-defined poverty line reached the status as a result of intentional unemployment, Shipler discussed stories of individuals who have been unable to rise out of poverty despite working one or multiple jobs.
"There's the man who washes cars but does not own one, the assistant teacher who cannot afford to put her own two children in daycare," Shipler said.
"The fruits of their labors are in our lives every day, but we do not see them as whole people when we see them stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart," he added. "The folks are hidden in plain sight."
Shipler began his lecture by describing a metaphor which he believed was most constructive view of dealing with poverty: a series of dots needing connection in order to produce a broader picture that can be dealt with.
He said that the causes of poverty appear to be "random, disjointed, seem far from each other, but have to be connected to understand each other."
"Poverty is not a culture. I think that's the wrong term, not a series of morals, values, but is more like an ecological system of relationships," he said.
"The federal government defines poverty very simply. ... If you earn a dollar more, you were not [categorized as impoverished]," Shipler said.
Shipler explained that although an impoverished condition cannot be defined by income alone, it is the only classification that the government uses.
"Poverty is also debt, because debt is part of the past that is carried into the present, sapping [people] of choices. Poverty is powerlessness," Shipler said.
Shipler discussed how the "myth" of the American dream has convinced society that anybody who is able to work hard can prosper. He noted that this misconception has created a judgmental side of society, which is used to condemn those who do not prosper.
Shipler noted that the notion of poverty is often misconstrued through similarly singular blame that both liberals and conservatives tend to place on societal institutions.
He explained that the traditional liberal view of poverty blames a fault of society; the conservative view blames a failure of the individual.
"In a perfect world, liberals who see society at fault and conservatives who see families at fault would assemble pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and see the full picture," Shipler said.
"It's the latter group I tend to see as hopeful, and I'm a liberal. They see the side that many liberal Democrats tend to miss."
Shipler said that as a journalist, he doesn't feel that he's in a place to make policy prescriptions.
However, he said that he ended his book with a discussion of the disparity between society's skill and will to assist in combating poverty.
"There's a lot more generosity in this society than we give ourselves credit for. As I was working on this book, I kept running into powerful currents of generosity all over the place," he said.
However, Shipler expressed a need for part of this generosity to be channeled though the government.
"The government is a powerful machine for mobilizing. How many of you would be willing to pay higher taxes to help address the issue of poverty?" Shipler asked.
Shipler concluded his speech with a hope that society would see the present condition of poverty as a dire situation that can only be remedied through the correct societal perception and resulting action.
"I look at this as an emergency for the United States ... to understand that investing in public education, vocational education, are worth paying higher taxes for, or else you have a workplace that is partially disabled," Shipler said.
"You do have to translate this into a problem that affects the power structure in order to get action," he added.
Shipler worked as a correspondent for the New York Times for twenty-three years, during which he reported from New York, Saigon, Moscow and Jerusalem.
"When I started working for the New York Times in the late 60s, I was covering housing, which took me into a lot of poor areas." he said.
"When I returned from eleven years overseas, I began to feel that I wanted to understand my own country as well as I could."
"He did spend many, many hours, many days talking and living the lives of the people who were caught in poverty even though they would work a forty hour week or longer," said Joe Stern, former editorial editor for the Baltimore Sun.
Sophomore Will Chang was one of few undergraduate students present at the event. "I thought it was a very well executed speech, with excellent points. I personally agreed with them; not everybody might, but they were well argued. A good choice of speaker, overall," Chang said.
The Institute for Policy Studies' 2005-2006 Public Policy Seminar series will next feature a seminar on the "Economic Analysis of Homeland Security Policies" Feb. 7.
