Urban Poverty is a Consequence of Structure - Coursework Example

Urban Poverty is a Consequence of Structure Every individual has an idea about the traits of an urban environment. News items, television programs, editorials, as well as magazine articles show ravages present in urban areas. Various scholars have written about persistence of poverty in urban environments while trying to know why poverty is highly prevalent in the barrio and the ghetto. Although these issues have played a vital role helping to realize the challenges that poor people in urban environments encounter, it is possible to misuse or understand them. Presently, the poverty incidences being witnessed in cities are complex phenomena. Here, a number of competing and overlapping poverty concepts help to focus attention towards how poor individuals behave. They raise attention on the ways in which the problems that an individual encounters may be attributed to public assistance or the flaws evident in basic politics and structure (Pappas 25). This paper will discuss the manner in which urban poverty is a consequence of structure particularly in the event of inequalities present in capitalist economies, such as the United States. Various observers in the contemporary economic environment regard poverty as structure. In this regard, certain patterns that are witnessed in large-sale socioeconomic perspectives as well as change play a vital role in creating and preventing alleviation of poverty. A number of arrangements generate more poverty compared to others and most developments being witnessed in the United States have followed this direction. The U.S. is experiencing a new era as global capitalism is intensifying (Goldsmith 16). Between 1974 and 1994, the U.S. marked this change during the oil price shock that was witnessed globally during this period, when new world economic pattern became effective. These changes emerged as unmistakable when urban aid was cut back in the late 1970s (Ni and Kresl 37). One of the major striking feature in most Americans minds is that the federal government was unwilling to practice clear as well as independent influence over America’s economy. A part of this reluctance resulted from the difficulties witnessed while enforcing the practice. For instance, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury encountered difficulties while using the Keynesian monetary and fiscal tools to help them in controlling unemployment, inflation, as well as interest in a simultaneous manner (Brunn, Williams and Zeigler 34). The traditional relationships do not hold any longer since the U.S. is currently a highly integrated global economy, with the most powerful countries influencing the domestic economy indirectly. In this case, many multinational enterprises are capable of manipulating economic forces in the United States in the same way that U.S.-based multinational corporations, Federal Reserve System and the Treasury have manipulated the operations of Third-World economies. Part of the shift in power is now associated with corporations, foreign markets, governments and banks, as well as those corporations that are based in the U.S. but operate in overseas markets (Callow 4). American economy globalization has significantly forced U.S. cities to embark on massive changes in their industrial structure. These initiatives are reinforced by the federal policy and local politics lack sufficient power to resist the changes. Patterns being witnessed in the case of international migration have been altered thereby changing how labor markets operate. These exceptions have subjected minority populations in cities to poverty, leaving them exploited and marginalized, pushing them aside, or leaving them to low-wage employment opportunities (Wratten 65). The growing credentialism eliminates individuals who lack formal education and training from well-paying jobs. Additionally, an uneven as well as undependable demand for labor has threatened the livelihoods of the poor. However, the worldwide changes witnessed in the recent past have made the labor market in urban areas less forgiving (The Economist). By taking a broader view, it is notable that the domestic economy, national industry, and political environment are intertwined in a revolutionary debilitating global web. International-scale social and technical evolutions are merging with new local politics to facilitate in reversing long-run national tendencies. For approximately 50 years, America has embarked on initiatives aimed at reducing poverty, equalize resource distribution, as well as supplement the middle class. Though these improvements are incomplete, they have been reversed (The Economist). Political and economic forces are currently incapable of combating poverty. They are instead generating poverty in urban environments. In this case, poverty is viewed with various perspectives and captured with the term “separation.” Separation encompasses social segmentation ideas, tremendous geographic separation, and economic inequality. Here, separation is not just attributed to a matter of degree, but is regarded as a reversing melting pot. In this case, it is possible to absorb the transition process before it is altered (Taylor, Kochhar and Fry 45). In the American society, it is unsettling to note how Americans allow segmentation use in an unconscious manner, inequality, as well as poor people isolation, where they are objectified and rationalized according to their condition. When the poor people are separated to be more distant from the rich, this distance naturally makes disparity more pleasant to the individuals who are better off, as the separation between them increases (Taylor, Kochhar and Fry 47). In the last twentieth century decades, Americans have witnessed this mode of separation as being imposed on them by certain forces that are driven by events. In case their leaders try to enhance competition in this globalized economy, they find it convenient when they ignore domestic concerns. New separation as well as the use of political differences in social background, race, and place has emerged as new consequences resulting from new competition. These practices then enforce discrimination against poor people with respect to offers of employment as well as the status assignment, and income distribution (Maggi). These practices also encourage discrimination with respect to public services, housing, and neighborhood quality provision. These inequalities contribute to additional separations. Among most Americans, they want to leave big cities, particularly because they are associated with codenames such as minorities, crime, and crumbling neighborhoods (Linn). Research reveals that the American society is divided into several classes. At the top of the hierarchy, engineers, technocrats, and managers use their positions and brains to guide the future of the country. At the bottom of the hierarchy, a repressive group accompanies the underprivileged in the society whose goal is to do the dull, unskilled, and dirty work, or remain unemployed, miserable, and drunkards (Linn). In the American society, dichotomies are evident everywhere, organizations set up splendid towers where they manage global networks of offices, factories, as well as high finance. The worldwide headquarters are above modern Public Square, which are air conditioned, enclosed, and publicly owned. In nearby neighborhoods, families remain unemployed and homeless. Most corporations both global and local pay low wages and salaries to most American workers living in urban areas. Both outside and inside the corporate sector problems of low-wage work and unemployment affect most of the people living in minority neighborhoods (Maggi). A number of temporary advantages are evident, particularly in matters pertaining to managing global economic issues better while ignoring domestic needs, and reduction of long-term costs associated with making these separations are broad. These costs prevail due to lack of sufficient capacity to establish agreements that help to deal with various issues affecting a country. In fact, high poverty rates as well as the rising separation in urban areas are dragging the competitiveness of America significantly (Ni and Kresl 17). The world today is a difficult place to live in. Poverty is evident among American groups who are socially detached from the bigger society, educationally handicapped, and institutionally victimized not only in the labor market, but also by the penal systems and social welfare. Severe poverty is based on political and economic structure, which is generated by three major forces. Firstly, when the poor are disconnected in an intergenerational manner from the mainstream society, this practice results to social, physical and political isolation. Secondly, the social and educational handicaps pose challenges when the poor try to enter the revolutionary high-tech and high-touch work environment where personal presentation and skills are vital. Thirdly, institutional hostility practiced by welfare systems, penal institutions among other bureaucracies force the poor people in urban areas to develop reliance on public charity as opposed to other participants while searching for resources for their families and their own unique needs. These forces are supported by the national policies’ changes while responding to the economic pressures being witnessed in the global economic environment. With the changes in the circumstances pertaining to desperate poverty and residual assistance, they have become inappropriate and insufficient with respect to addressing poverty issues in urban areas. Poverty in an urban environment results from various forms of inequalities that result from ways in which capitalist economies are structured. The government used to protect workers from various forms of exploitation in the past. However, in the recent years, the manner in which urban areas are structured due to the influence of global competition and evolution of business-class people in the political environment has encouraged the government to withdraw support from the poor. This practice has played a vital role in intensifying poverty in urban areas since the minority people are subjected to unemployment and low-paying jobs, which make their living conditions to deteriorate tremendously. Works Cited Brunn, Stanley, Jack Williams and Donald Zeigler. Cities of the World: World Regional Urban Development. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Print. Goldsmith, William. Separate Societies: Poverty and Inequality in U.S. Cities. New York: Temple University Press, 1992. Print. Linn, Allison. "State of the American Dream is uncertain." 2013. CNBC. web. 9 October 2014. . Callow, Alexander. "The Development of American Cities." 2012. Macaulay Honors College. web. 9 October 2014. . Maggi, Laura. "The Poor Count." 2001. The American Prospect. web. 9 October 2014. . Ni, Pengfei and Karl Peter Kresl. The Global Urban Competitiveness Report - 2010. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010. Print. Pappas, Gregory. The Magic City: Unemployment in a Working-class Community. New York: Cornell University Press, 1989. Print. Taylor, Paul, et al. Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Washington DC: PEW Research Center, 2011. Print. The Economist. "Meritocracy in America: Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend." 2004. The Economist. web. 9 October 2014. . Wratten, Ellen. Urban Poverty: Characteristics, Causes and Consequences. New York: IIED, 2007. Print. Read More