Nov. 18, 1997 (revised June, 2004)

To the Editor

In his latest commentary, Mr. Leed asserts that, “The idea of a vast class of hopeless people permanently stuck in poverty, is simply wrong”. Three paragraphs later he contradicts himself, acknowledging that at least, “1.4 percent of our population (is) stuck at the bottom of the (economic) ladder”. He defends his “classless” argument by touting the upward mobility of the bottom 20 percent of the population, then makes us wonder if he believes there are any poor people at all by claiming that the lowest 20% are actually making twice as much money as they tell the IRS.

What’s the answer? Are there vast numbers of people stuck in poverty or not?

It seems to me that (using Leed’s figures) 1.4 percent of 250 million equals 3.5 million Americans. That is indeed a vast number and just because, technically speaking, our pluralistic society allows for a few of the poorest to climb up from the bottom (and fewer of the wealthiest to fall down to it), does not erase the fact that our economic system requires that somebody (in reality, a lot of somebodies ) remain at the bottom. Capitalism succeeds, not in spite of poverty but because of it – and by maintaining a permanent underclass of the unemployed.

For a clear example of this point, one need only look at the inevitable response of Wall Street to employment figures. When the unemployment rate drops, i.e. when more people begin pulling themselves up by their bootstraps – the stock market plunges, thereby halting or reversing business expansion, causing lay-offs, and pushing the unemployment rate back up. Why does this happen? Why can’t the US economy attain and survive full employment?

The answer is that it can but it is not allowed to -- not because of some clever, worldwide conspiracy but simply because of the collective greed of individuals at the top of the economic ladder, and their tweaking of the collective insecurity of those on the lower rungs. Although the upperclass fears for their portfolios, profits, and status, The other classes’ concerns are immediate. The hardworking middleclasses fear for their health, houses, and retirements because none are guaranteed. The underclass merely fears for daily survival.

It is essential then, to the preservation of the upperclass, that everyone else on the ladder focus their fear, anxieties and hatreds on those below them – it is better to kick than be kicked. Ultimately then, without a pool of desperate, unemployed people at the very bottom, willing to “steal” their jobs, the lowest paid workers would be free to demand better wages, benefits, and working conditions and, in effect, take a step up the ladder – thereby pressuring everyone above them to do the same. It doesn’t take an Harvard economist to understand that everyone can’t fit on the top of the ladder.

We are, undeniably, a class society and we are all responsible for the existence and perpetuation of poverty.

Though we may wring our hands over the plight of the poor, we all stand on their hands as soon as they reach up from the bottom rung. Mr. Leed and others like him, insist that, “Impoverishing the rich will not enrich the poor”. This may be so. But as long as we, as a society, allow wealth and power to be consolidated by exploiting the earth and the labor of others; as long as we exalt those who do this; as long as we, as individuals, believe we deserve to be above someone else -- there will always be vast numbers of people stuck in poverty. The possibility that they may not be “hopeless” does not absolve us.