State of the Union: The Poverty and Inequality Report 2016

The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (CPI), one of the country's three federally-funded poverty centers, is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to monitoring trends in poverty and inequality, examining what is driving those trends, and developing science-based policy on poverty and inequality. We present here our third annual report examining the "state of the union" on poverty, inequality, and labor market outcomes.The purpose of establishing this annual series of reports is to ensure that critical facts on poverty and inequality enjoy the same visibility as other indicators of the country's health. There are of course all manner of analyses that take on separately such issues as poverty, employment, income inequality, health inequality, economic mobility, or educational access. This report instead provides a unified analysis that brings together evidence across these and other domains and thus allows for a comprehensive assessment of where the country stands

A nagy egyenlőtlenségek társadalmilag káros következményei

A jövedelmi egyenlőtlenségeknek az Egyesült Államokban tapasztalt lendületes növekedése már meglehetősen régóta tart; mostanra megkérdőjelezhetetlen, és szemlátomást stabil eleme lett hétköznapjainknak. Jóllehet sok kutatás vizsgálta már, mik az okai ennek a lendületnek, miből táplálkozik, mégis nagyon keveset tudunk arról, hogyan is próbálják az emberek a maguk számára kialakítani a megélhetés új módozatait egy olyan társadalomban, ahol az egyenlőtlenségek mértéke egyre csak fokozódik. Hogyan változtatták meg a növekvő jövedelmi egyenlőtlenségek azokat a szabályokat, amelyek betartása révén az emberek képesnek bizonyulnak betagozódni korunk kulcsszerepet betöltő intézményeibe (vegyük példának akár a családot, akár a katonaságot, a börtönt vagy az oktatási rendszert)? Hogyan változott meg a szabályoknak az az együttese, melyek alapján például a piacgazdaság rendszere „jutalmazza” a résztvevőket? Hogyan hatott mindez életvitelünk alkalmazkodóképességére? Hogyan változtatta meg életünket vezérlő attitűdjeinket s azokat a politikai ideológiákat, amelyekre fölesküdtünk

Micro-class mobility: social reproduction in four countries

In the sociological literature on social mobility, the long-standing convention has been to assume that intergenerational reproduction takes one of two forms, either a categorical form that has parents passing on a big-class position to their children, or a gradational form that has parents passing on their socioeconomic standing to their children. These conventional approaches ignore in their own ways the important role that occupations play in transferring advantage and disadvantage from one generation to the next. In log-linear analyses of nationally representative data from the United States, Sweden, Germany, and Japan, we show that (a) occupations are an important conduit for reproduction, (b) the most extreme rigidities in the mobility regime are only revealed when analyses are carried out at the detailed occupational level, and (c) much of what shows up as big-class reproduction in conventional mobility analyses is in fact occupational reproduction in disguise. Although the four countries studied here differ in the extent to which the occupational form has been institutionalized, we show that it is too prominent to ignore in any of these countries. Even in Japan, which has long been regarded as distinctively 'deoccupationalized,' we find evidence of extreme occupational rigidities. These results suggest that an occupational mechanism for reproduction may be a fundamental feature of all contemporary mobility regimes. [author's abstract

Reducing Poverty in California…Permanently

If California were to seriously commit to equalizing opportunity and reducing poverty, how might that commitment best be realized? This is of course a hypothetical question, as there is no evidence that California is poised to make such a serious commitment, nor have many other states gone much beyond the usual lip-service proclamations. There are many reasons for California’s complacency, but an important one is that most people think that poverty is intractable and that viable solutions to it simply don’t exist. When Californians know what needs to be done, they tend to go forward and get it done. When, for example, the state’s roads are in disrepair, there are rarely paralyzing debates about exactly how to go about fixing them; instead we proceed with the needed repairs as soon as the funds to do so are appropriated. The same type of sure and certain prescription might appear to be unavailable when it comes to reducing poverty. It is hard not to be overwhelmed by the cacophony of voices yielding a thick stream of narrow-gauge interventions, new evaluations, and piecemeal proposals.1 Although the research literature on poverty is indeed large and may seem confusing, recent advances have in fact been so fundamental that it is now possible to develop a science-based response to poverty. In the past, the causes of poverty were not well understood, and major interventions, such as the War on Poverty, had to be built more on hunch than science. It is an altogether different matter now. The causes of poverty are well established, and the effects of many possible policy responses to poverty are likewise well established. The simple purpose of this essay is to assemble these advances into a coherent plan that would, if implemented, reduce poverty in California substantially

Human mobility networks reveal increased segregation in large cities

A long-standing expectation is that large, dense, and cosmopolitan areas support socioeconomic mixing and exposure between diverse individuals. It has been difficult to assess this hypothesis because past approaches to measuring socioeconomic mixing have relied on static residential housing data rather than real-life exposures between people at work, in places of leisure, and in home neighborhoods. Here we develop a new measure of exposure segregation (ES) that captures the socioeconomic diversity of everyday encounters. Leveraging cell phone mobility data to represent 1.6 billion exposures among 9.6 million people in the United States, we measure exposure segregation across 382 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and 2829 counties. We discover that exposure segregation is 67% higher in the 10 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) than in small MSAs with fewer than 100,000 residents. This means that, contrary to expectation, residents of large cosmopolitan areas have significantly less exposure to diverse individuals. Second, we find evidence that large cities offer a greater choice of differentiated spaces targeted to specific socioeconomic groups, a dynamic that accounts for this increase in everyday socioeconomic segregation. Third, we discover that this segregation-increasing effect is countered when a city's hubs (e.g. shopping malls) are positioned to bridge diverse neighborhoods and thus attract people of all socioeconomic statuses. Overall, our findings challenge a long-standing conjecture in human geography and urban design, and highlight how built environment can both prevent and facilitate exposure between diverse individuals

Why is there so much Poverty in California? The Causes of California’s Sky-High Poverty and the Evidence Behind the Equal Opportunity Plan for Reducing It

The purpose of this report is to describe the current state of poverty in California, to discuss concrete steps that could be taken to reduce poverty in California, and to present the best available evidence on the likely effects of those steps. We take on an important but infrequently-posed question: If California were to seriously commit to reducing poverty, how might that commitment best be realized? This is of course a hypothetical question, as there is no evidence that California is poised to make such a serious commitment, nor have many other states gone much beyond the usual lip service proclamations. It is nonetheless especially striking that California, the highest-poverty state in the country, has not rushed in to rectify the matter.1 There are many reasons for this seeming complacency, but an especially important one is that most people think that poverty is intractable and that viable solutions to it simply don’t exist. When Californians know what needs to be done, they tend to go forward and get it done. When, for example, the state’s roads are in disrepair, there are rarely paralyzing debates about exactly how to go about fixing them; and instead we proceed with the needed repairs as soon as the funds to do so are appropriated. The same type of sure and certain prescription might appear to be unavailable when it comes to fixing poverty. It is hard not to be overwhelmed by the cacaphony of voices yielding a thick stream of narrow-gauge interventions, new evaluations, and piecemeal proposals.

Occupy: in theory and practice

This paper situates the discourse of the Occupy movement within the context of radical political philosophy. Our analysis takes place on two levels. First, we conduct an empirical analysis of the ‘official’ publications of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and Occupy London (OL). Operationalising core concepts from the framing perspective within social movement theory, we provide a descriptive-comparative analysis of the ‘collective action frames’ of OWS and OL. Second, we consider the extent to which radical political philosophy speaks to the discourse of Occupy. Our empirical analysis reveals that both movements share diagnostic frames, but there were notable differences in terms of prognostic framing. The philosophical discussion suggests that there are alignments between anarchist, post-anarchist and post-Marxist ideologies at the level of both identity and strategy. Indeed, the absence of totalising anti-capitalist or anti-statist positions in Occupy suggests that – particularly with Occupy London – alignments are perhaps not so distant from typically social democratic demands

The Effect of the Earned Income Tax Credit in the District of Columbia on Poverty and Income Dynamics

Using unique longitudinal administrative tax panel data for the District of Columbia (DC), we assess the combined effect of the DC supplemental earned income tax credit (EITC) and the federal EITC on poverty and income dynamics within Washington, DC, from 2001 to 2011. The EITC in DC merits investigation, as the DC supplement to the federal credit is the largest in the nation. The supplemental DC EITC was enacted in 2000, and has been expanded from 10 percent of the federal credit in 2001 to 40 percent as of 2009. To implement the study, we estimate least squares models with 0/1 dependent variables to estimate the likelihood of net-EITC income above poverty and near-poverty thresholds. We also estimate the likelihood of earnings growth and income stabilization from the EITC. To identify the effect of the EITC, we exploit variation in the EITC subsidy rate from 2008 to 2009, when an additional EITC bracket of 45 percent was added for workers with three or more dependent children, up from 40 percent in the previous year for workers with two or more children. We also estimate a model examining the impact of city-level changes to the EITC. The structure and richness of our data enable us to control for tax filer fixed effects, an important innovation from many previous EITC studies. Overall, we find that the combined EITC raises the likelihood of net-EITC income above poverty and near poverty by as much as 9 percent, with the largest consistent effects accruing to single-parent families