Working-class perceptions of the poor

Much has been said about working-class whites’ support of Trump being driven by poor economic prospects and anxiety about jobs and declining employment opportunities. While working-class whites might be concerned about their own jobs, some data suggests that this concern doesn’t always extend to the very poor or other ethnic groups.

In 2016, the Los Angeles Times ran an update of a survey they originally conducted in 1985 assessing public opinion on poverty and the poor. The study, called Dividing Lines, found that respondents’ attitudes about the poor between 1985 and 2016 remained largely the same, even after significant social and economic change. Most notably, the survey found that criticisms of the poor – that there are “plenty of jobs for those who want them” and that the poor would prefer to “stay on welfare” rather than work – were more commonly held by white blue-collar Americans who supported Donald Trump.

Blue-collar whites were more likely to say that the government wasn’t ultimately responsible for taking care of the poor, and were also more likely than other groups to say that government programs to help the poor had made poverty worse by making more people dependent and encouraging them to stay poor. (Interestingly, those respondents below poverty level were also more likely to say that anti-poverty government programs had made things worse… maybe because they aren’t going far enough?) Finally, blue-collar whites were more likely to see the poor as a “class set apart from the rest of society – trapped in poverty as a more or less permanent condition.”

Perhaps some of these views are rooted in racism. The Huffington post recently put out survey results indicating a majority of Americans have misconceptions of who actually receives welfare and other safety-net benefits in the United States. The word welfare has had long been loaded with racial meaning and associated with the apocryphal figure of a inner-city, black, “welfare-queen”… a lie told by President Reagan in the mid 1970’s that has taken hold in the American psyche ever since. This remains true in 2018. Huffington Post found that most respondents mistakenly believed that black Americans were the primary recipients of safety-net benefits. However, as Huffington Post noted:

The numbers reflect a significant overestimation of the number of black Americans benefiting from the largest programs. Medicaid had more than 70 million beneficiaries in 2016, of whom 43 percent were white, 18 percent black, and 30 percent Hispanic. Of 43 million food stamp recipients that year, 36.2 percent were white, 25.6 percent black, 17.2 percent Hispanic and 15.5 percent unknown.

The other major safety-net program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (the program traditionally associated with the term “welfare”) had roughly equal numbers of black and white recipients.

Another possible explanation is resentment that the very poor and those who aren’t working have access to government assistance that struggling other working-class families do not. Many blue-collar folks may be hurting financially, yet still have incomes that exceed the eligibility limits for government assistance programs. They may see their tax money going to such programs and wonder what’s in it for them. Or, they may be disabled, yet remain committed to working nonetheless. This is the mentality we explored when we read “Disabled and Disdained” and examined the relationship between the working-class and the non-working poor. In it, a man named David Hess, found himself frustrated with what he saw as laziness among the working poor:

Living at the center of an opioid crisis, and in the aftermath of a decades-long surge in the nation’s disability rolls, Hess had long perceived a resistance to work. . . . He would come away thinking he worked 60 hours a week — despite a thyroid condition, despite two bankruptcies, despite the depressed local economy — not because he felt like it but because that was who he was. And now here was another person who didn’t want to work — he wanted a handout.

The social safety net is shrinking (fewer poor families are receiving TANF benefits than ever) and conservatives want to limit it even further. While blue-collar voters may hope that decreased safety-net program expenditures will result in lower taxes and better financial outcomes for them, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Trump’s tax plan is not structured to significantly decrease taxes for the poor and working class. Rather, his newly passed tax plan disproportionately benefits the wealthy who are already doing just fine. As one Washington Post analysis puts it:

Republicans claim the bill is meant to benefit the middle class, but lower– and middle–class taxpayers will receive moderate tax cuts. The wealthy, by contrast, get a massive windfall, and the corporate tax rate would nearly cut in half. The individual tax cuts are expected to lessen over time, since most related provisions expire at the end of 2025, but the rich still do much better than everyone else.

It seems that fomenting class warfare has been very beneficial for those wealthy folks who stand to benefit from huge tax cuts. The working-class have come to resent the poor for being lazy and entitled, but fail to recognize that they have more in common with them than they realize, including a common antagonist – those favoring a reduction in the social safety net, but not passing the savings on to working class folks. This is just further evidence that political candidates looking to capture the working class in 2018 and 2020 should lean into the populist sentiment and focus on messaging that will encourage cooperation and understanding between the poor and the working-class.

Liberal elites recognize white privilege... do we recognize class privilege?

The concept of white privilege is, I think, is one that is generally-accepted among so-called liberal elites. Our social, political, and economic history as a nation provides substantial and convincing evidence that white privilege has been, and remains, a significant influence on American society. The enslavement of African Americans has resulted in a painful legacy for black people in in our country. As a Los Angeles Times piece concisely summarized:

... slavery morphed into 100 years of segregation, economic disadvantage, rights denied and racist terrorism for African Americans. And now, even after the advances of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and '60s, systemic issues remain: mass incarceration, unequal educational opportunities, economic disparities, political disenfranchisement, police violence.

Beyond intellectual arguments and historical explanations for white privilege, it's also not particularly difficult to recognize every-day, anecdotal ways in which white privilege manifests in our day-to-day lives. In class we reflected on this by reading Peggy McIntosh's White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. White privilege is more than an academic idea… it has infiltrated popular media and is a common social media hashtag.

Liberal elites in the United States are comfortable recognizing white privilege, but do we really recognize (and take a long, hard, look at) our class privilege, especially in relationship to working class whites? We champion socially (and racially) “progressive” ideals and values, yet we don’t seem particularly interested in championing the white-working-class. Joan Williams discusses this in her talk entitled “Why Did Trump Win? Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America” when she discusses the open mockery of the working class in American popular culture as the continuation of a “100-year tradition of snobbism.” Lisa R. Pruitt discusses this in her essay critiquing the liberal elite response to J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy. Vance’s victim-blaming rhetoric, which would curdle the blood of a liberal if it were directed toward poor black people (see: "The Moynihan Report"), was fawned over when written about poor whites. I also think back to my Feminist Legal Theory course, when we discussed the intersection of feminism and class. Sheryl Sandberg, liberal elite hero and feminist icon, isn’t exactly a class-consciousness warrior.

There are many reasons why class is so difficult to confront in American society. The American ethos that anyone can make it with enough hard work, the expanded American conception of who is middle class, the general taboo against recognizing or discussing class stratification in everyday interactions – all of these phenomena play a role. However, I think there is another explanation for our difficulties recognizing class-privilege. Liberal elites are complicit in the class system (just as ostensibly non-racist whites are complicit in white privilege) and we aren’t eager to recognize it.

This idea of elites – as a group that gives lip service to equality while simultaneously holding lower classes in contempt – is touched on in Elizabeth Currid-Halkett’s book, The Sum of Small Things. In the book, Currid-Halkett lays out a theory that defines the cultural elite as an “aspirational class.” Instead of spending money on “things,” the aspirational class maximizes “inconspicuous consumption” by spending money on child-care, “elite” media (podcasts, The New Yorker), organic vegetables from Whole Foods, gym memberships, and, most importantly, education.

Simon Kuper, of the Financial Times, wrote an interesting piece linking Currid-Halkett’s theory of the aspirational class to Trump’s election. In it, he states:

Trump likes to tag the cultural elite as ‘the elite’ but not all class members are rich. . . . Rather, what defines the cultural elite is education. Most of its members went to brand-name universities, and consider themselves deserving rather than entitled. They believe in facts and experts. Most grew up comfortably off in the post-1970s boom. Their education is their insurance policy and, so almost whatever their income, they suffer less economic anxiety than older or lesser educated people. Their political utopia is high-tax, egalitarian, feminist and green. They aim to be “better humans” rather than simply rich . . . The inequality they see everywhere is never their fault.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with advocating for higher taxes, being a feminist, or caring about the environment. But Kuper seems to argue that the space to focus on and prioritize these things comes from an enormous amount of financial, social, and educational privilege – privilege that comes from a capitalist class system under which working-class-whites are left behind. Yet liberal elites still have trouble recognizing this. In their minds, when others don’t subscribe to their political ideals, it’s not because they have logical economic motivation not to. It’s because their values are all wrong.

Currid-Halkett also notes in her book that the top 1-5 % spend 5% of their total expenditures on education, while the middle class barely spends 1%. Given that huge educational gap, Kuper observes:

Today’s cultural elite is engaged in a ruthless project to reproduce its social position. Barring some huge economic shift, today’s breastfed elite toddlers will be the elite of 2050. The meritocracy is becoming hereditary.

And the aspirational class isn’t just looking to perpetuate its social position, it’s looking to insulate it. The Midwest is flyover country, full of gun nuts, close-minded religious types, and flag-worshippers. Elites make moral judgments about and avoid people who eat junk food, leave their kids with an iPad rather than a nanny, or don’t believe in global warming. Trump voters are stupid, sexist, bigots, not to be taken seriously. Trump himself is one big joke.

Of course, it’s easier to characterize the white-working-class as an “other” that is just beyond hope than to acknowledge that class stratification (and the liberal elite role in perpetuating it) needs to be a priority topic of conversation.

One can easily poke some holes in Kuper’s theory. Liberal elites are usually the ones advocating for pro-working-class policies like increased minimum wages and universal health care. However, I do think there is a kernel of truth in Kuper’s argument… and I think I feel that way because I recognize  it within myself. My own goal moving forward is to try to have a greater consciousness of class and how growing class inequality has contributed (at least in part) to the social and political chasm in our country. I’d like to focus on bridging that gap rather than ignoring it.

Corporate education for the white working class

Walmart Academy is one of the largest employer training programs in the country. The training teaches supervisors and managers skills such as merchandising and how to motivate employees (At Walmart Academy, Training Better Managers. But With a Better Future?). After a few weeks, participants walk across the stage for graduation, and for many of them it’s the first time they have graduated from anything. I wonder if the skills learned at the Academy are actually valuable to the employee as an individual and if they can help them get jobs at similar stores.

There are now more of the various dollar stores than Walmarts (approximately 5 to 1) in the United States (Join the Booming Dollar Store Economy! Low Pay, Long Hours, May Work While Injured). It seems that customers and employees of Walmart and Dollar General are similar in demographic profile. 

The typical Dollar General shopper is white, working class... tends to rely on some form of government assistance

and is a supporter of President Trump (The profitable business of selling to the hard-up). It would be useful then, if the skills learned at Walmart gave employees a leg up for jobs at dollar stores, such as Dollar General. 

Dollar General has been widely successful due in part to the fact that the store caters to these people who live in rural areas still feeling the effects of the recession (The profitable business of selling to the hard-up). Walmart, on the other hand, faced some backlash from the working class rural for forcing small local businesses to close, and for selling products that weren’t made in America.  Walmart Academy may be part of an effort to rebrand the company as one that cares about its people (Walmart Acadmy, Training Better Managers, But With a Better Future?). When compared to Dollar General, it seems like the store does treat its employees better, at least.

Dollar General managers are often pressured with keeping labor costs down, which means doing extra work themselves. Some managers claim to work well over 40 hours a week, but because their position is salaried, they are exempt from overtime protections (The profitable business of selling to the hard-up). 

...the stingy payroll required by the dollar store business model leaves many employees overworked, underpaid and even injured, according to workers and litigation filed over labor practices. While further promotions await some managers, for many the leadership job they longed for isn’t a road to the middle class so much as a glorified manual labor gig that quickly burns them out. In interviews and court documents, former and current store managers claim major dollar store companies classify them as managers merely to evade overtime obligations and to pay them less money (The profitable business of selling to the hard-up).

Some managers at Dollar General

feel no different from the people they supervise, except that their hours are longer. The per-hour pay rate often works out to be roughly equal

to those they are managing (Join the Booming Dollar Store Economy! Low Pay, Long Hours, May Work While Injured).

So, it seems that even if one tried to use skills learned at the Walmart Academy to get a job at Dollar General, it would not do him or her much good.  Dollar General probably could not care less if its 'mangers' know how to merchandise or motive an employee, as long as they can do the manual labor and keep labor costs down.

Some argue that what both Walmart employees and Dollar General employees really need is higher starting wages. However, others argue,

if the starting wage is too high... employers will be less likely to hire unskilled, inexperienced workers (At Walmart Academy, Training Better Manages. But With a Better Future?). 

But who would they hire instead; skilled and experienced workers that they have to pay more anyway? I am not sure what it is yet, but something about this feels like a trap.  An employee trained at Walmart may be effectively unskilled (or overqualified) for Dollar General's scheme.  It seems like higher starting wages are the employees only hope.

Maybe the more important concern is: what leads some white working class people to rely on Walmart for skills training and education opportunities? Is it the failure of some other system: perhaps public education or healthcare? Or a symptom of both upper and lower class whites' tendency to ignore the existence of a white working class? Animus between the white working class and elites, which turns the former off to higher education?

Who do so many working class whites receive disability?

The increase in the number of Americans on disability and the concentration of recipients in certain counties is fascinating to me. Why are more and more Americans receiving federal disability benefits? Are they living increasingly unhealthy or risky lifestyles?

And why are so many disability recipients concentrated in certain counties? Are they working more dangerous jobs? Or are they just lazy? Terrence McCoy discusses this phenomenon in his five-part series on disability payments in rural America for the Washington Post.

There have been numerous posts about the series on the Legal Ruralism blog. For more information on the trend of intergenerational federal disability recipients click here. For another take on panhandling in rural America click here. For more on the underground economy in rural America click here.

I came into this class knowing only one person on disability, my uncle. He won over $5 million dollars in the California lottery and lost it all within ten years. He now receives federal disability benefits because he had two strokes.

What caused his strokes? The same methamphetamine that cost him his lottery winnings. How does he spend his disability check? Two packs of cigarettes a day and a monthly trip to Morongo, a Native American casino located a couple hours from my grandmother’s home in San Pedro. That’s right, he's in his mid-sixties and lives with his mother. More money for gambling and cigarettes when the rent and groceries are covered.

Needless to say, my opinions on disability recipients were similar to those of David Hess, the owner of the house on the hill discussed in the McCoy article we read for class. After reading McCoy’s series, my view has grown to be more nuanced. It is difficult to draw conclusions on the increasing population of disability recipients in rural, white, working class America.

The numbers are staggering. Between 1996 and 2015 the number of Americans receiving disability increased from 7.7 million to 13 million. More money is spent on disability benefits than on SNAP, welfare, housing subsidies and unemployment combined.

In the 102 counties with the highest rate of disability recipients, one in six residents receives benefits. All but two of those counties are rural. Eighty-six of the 102 counties were majority white, and in those counties whites made up 90 percent of the population. 

There are certain instances where everyone would agree disability should be awarded. No one will bemoan the disability recipient who broke his back in a coal mining accident.

However, disability recipients often suffer from ailments that many would not traditionally associate with an inability to work. Multiple recipients surveyed by McCoy receive disability because of their anxiety. Another suffers from depression. Many of the recipients discussed struggling internally with the fact that they could still physically work despite their disability. 

The spectrum of shame felt by disability recipients is revealing. Some shamelessly seek benefits at any opportunity. For example, the grandmother who shamelessly brings her grandchildren to the doctor insisting that they have autism, OCD, and ADHD to appeal the government’s decision to cut off their disability benefits. 

Others desperately want to work and feel a deep embarrassment from relying on government benefits. One woman profiled by McCoy desperately wanted to find work, but after ten years, filled with depression and anxiety, she was unable to become one of the meager 3.7 percent of recipients to get off disability.

Other recipients profiled applied to numerous jobs but ignored available positions at fast food restaurants and Wal-Mart because of the low pay. The compensation is so low at these jobs that a full time worker would receive less take home pay than if they simply remained disability recipients. Recipients often previously worked blue collar jobs that paid in excess of $20.00. For these recipients it is difficult to find the motivation to work for about a third of what they once made.

While it is important to recognize the plight of many residing in these depleted communities the manner in which disability benefits are consumed by its recipients can be alarming. In Logan, West Virginia, cars line up for hours outside of ATMs on the first of the month when disability checks come in.

One woman admitted to spending her entire check within days of receiving it on, amongst other things, three six packs of beer and cigarettes. Another man copped to purchasing 3 12-packs of Mountain Dew for his girlfriend who often drinks 24 cans in a day. It’s hard to get behind my tax dollars being used to facilitate smoking, binge drinking, and extremely unhealthy Mountain Dew habits.

The one common thread through each of the recipients profiled by McCoy is their desperation. The desperation to get that next meal and survive the day. To provide for their families. Even the Mountain Dew and beer purchases reek of a desperation to find an escape from a life of constant uncertainty. These are some of the most relatable human emotions and are undoubtedly sympathetic.

I find it difficult to draw conclusions from McCoy’s series. McCoy does not indicate that high disability rates are a result of dangerous blue collar jobs, which are more prevalent amongst the white, working class. Nor does he spend much time discussing the foreign outsourcing of many traditionally rural, blue collar jobs. However, it is not difficult to infer a connection between the anxiety and depression of many disability recipients and the uncertainty of poverty triggered by chronic unemployment.

Whether or not the rising disability rolls is a national crisis likely depends on one’s opinion on the role of government as a safety net. There are certain jobs white working class folks just do not want to do. For those who think that government should play a limited role, it is anathema that abled bodied workers are collecting government paychecks when jobs are available and often being avoided because they pay less than the free money. Even moreso that these checks are often being spent on beer, soda and cigarettes.

If you believe government should provide a hand in trying times, then it is hard not to feel sympathy for these people. Even if a recipient is physically able to work, slaving away for 40 hours at minimum wage for the honor of taking home less than money then if they just sat at home all day is a deal that many Americans would refuse.

I believe that creating incentives for disability recipients to go back to work as well as treating them with dignity and respect would be a good start towards creating an environment where everyone wins. Both sides need to recognize the concerns of the other and work towards finding compromise rather than dispute.