Difference between revisions of "Underclass"
(just a quote from the Brookings Institution, to get us started) |
(links, mostly red - let's get crackin' people!) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In 1988, Erol Ricketts and Isabel Sawhill proposed a conceptual definition of the underclass and then produced some of the first empirical estimates of the size of the underclass using available census data. A number of journalists, such as Ken Auletta and Leon Dash, who had written about the underclass emphasized that it was not just about low income, but also about destructive or anti-social | + | In 1988, [[Erol Ricketts]] and [[Isabel Sawhill]] proposed a conceptual definition of the underclass and then produced some of the first empirical estimates of the size of the underclass using available [[census data]]. A number of journalists, such as [[Ken Auletta]] and [[Leon Dash]], who had written about the underclass emphasized that it was not just about [[low income]], but also about [[destructive behavior|destructive]] or [[anti-social behavior]]s. When Ricketts and Sawhill considered which behaviors to focus on they chose four. To have a shot at the [[American dream]], they argued, you needed to stay in school at least through high school; you needed to not [[illegitimacy|have a baby before you were married]] or prepared to [[support a child]]; you needed to work or [[job hunting|actively seek work]]; and you needed to be law-abiding. This is what most Americans expect other Americans to do. If you are poor, despite doing all of these things, then you are not part of the underclass and have a reasonable chance of making it, especially if provided with an appropriate set of social supports. But if you fail to behave in accordance with this set of [[societal norms]], you are less deserving of social assistance and could be considered part of the underclass. [http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2006/01poverty_jargowsky.aspx] |
Revision as of 01:54, January 10, 2012
In 1988, Erol Ricketts and Isabel Sawhill proposed a conceptual definition of the underclass and then produced some of the first empirical estimates of the size of the underclass using available census data. A number of journalists, such as Ken Auletta and Leon Dash, who had written about the underclass emphasized that it was not just about low income, but also about destructive or anti-social behaviors. When Ricketts and Sawhill considered which behaviors to focus on they chose four. To have a shot at the American dream, they argued, you needed to stay in school at least through high school; you needed to not have a baby before you were married or prepared to support a child; you needed to work or actively seek work; and you needed to be law-abiding. This is what most Americans expect other Americans to do. If you are poor, despite doing all of these things, then you are not part of the underclass and have a reasonable chance of making it, especially if provided with an appropriate set of social supports. But if you fail to behave in accordance with this set of societal norms, you are less deserving of social assistance and could be considered part of the underclass. [1]