But, what about, helping the poor??

First some history highlights:

• First poor laws (17th century England); the 'undeserving'
• Speenhamland laws (localities subsidize wages--similar to today's EITC)
• US welfare--local phenomenon, political machines in late 19th century, parallel development of the social work profession
• What about pre-industrial societies?

Capitalism

• Economic system (versus command economy)
• Supply/demand; private property; entrepreneurs; markets, unemployment . . . profit
• Inherently dynamic system -- some level of unemployment is the norm
• Welfare--though the previous point implies its necessity, the 'deserving/undeserving' dichotomy often prevails (especially for certain kinds of welfare programs/assistance)

The authors' (Cloward and Fox Piven) argument:

1. Capitalist economies are dynamic. Some level of unemployment is a permanent and necessary feature of the system.
2. Relief has historically been a local phenomenon, available to the 'worthy';
3. Economic disruptions occur frequently; Major disruptions (e.g., the Great Depression, Industrialization) are rare, but will occur; the complexity of economies makes them hard to predict, though;
4. Mass unemployment and lack of social safety nets associated with major disruptions are likely to lead to civil unrest;
5. Unchecked, unrest may lead to social movements, the mobilization of those most affected by the disruption;
6. The problem can be so massive that no amount of tinkering can resolve it (e.g., unemployment hit 25% during the Great Depression);
7. The government, in order to preserve the capitalist system, and with much counterpressure from powerful industries, may have to intervene directly (offer direct relief, which could be in the form of cash or in-kind benefits).
8. If the direct relief addresses the problems and eases the unrest, the relief system tends to contract, leaving a shell (mainly of services available to the 'deserving'--those unable to work and support themselves), and enforcing once again low-wage work among the able-bodied by making welfare benefits unattractive or difficult to receive.

So, welfare as a means of controlling wages and quelling civil unrest. The evidence:

The Great Depression

• Massive unemployment--the unemployeds' numbers increased five fold from 1929 to 1933.
• Social movements: Elderly; Veterans (and the Bonus Army), Huey Long's 'rednecks'; 'share our wealth' (a populist movement seeking redistributive tax reform); the unemployed (the 'able-bodied')
• Groups occasionally became violent, attacking welfare offices, for instance

• Federal responses:
• Hoover: Denial, supply-side policies, companies should maintain payrolls
• FDR, John Maynard Keynes ('demand-side' policies), and the New Deal
• Social security

  • The Social Security Act of 1935 included old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and assistance for the disabled, elderly dependents, widows and orphans
• Tax reform (progressive, graduated)
• Section 7a of the NLRA-right for labor groups to organize and right to bargain collectively
• FERA--Federal Emergency Relief Act--direct relief, monthly subsidies, 20 million people were on the welfare roles by 1934. As one administrator remembered it, goal was 'to distribute as much as possible, as fast as possible, to as many as possible.'
• Public investment was huge
• Opposition, pushback from the business community . . . (the 'business plot' to overthrow the government) why? What effects?

'Period of relative stability'

• Economic changes in the 1950s--Industrialization of agriculture
• Migration of blacks--20 million--why? Where?
• Between 1950-69, 1 million farms disappeared (meaning, were consolidated)
• farm output increased by 45%
• farm labor decreased by 45%
• 'Relative stability' turned out to be racist

  • forced off welfare rolls during growing season
  • 'residence laws' used to prevent migration
  • 'midnight raids', 'man in the house' rules
  • women and children over 50% of workforce
  • Those removed from welfare rolls in South overwhelmingly African American

  So, why was there little or no protest?

  1. The migration was gradual--it didn't occur all at once, as migration during the Dust Bowl did;
  2. Unemployed in agriculture are generally a dispersed population, not concentrated in the cities, making mobilization and organization more difficult;
  3. Racism--can be found in most any locality, but is more overt and pervasive in the South;
  4. Migration--people merely left (rather than stay and protest ...).

Turmoil in the 1960s

• Unrest in the cities (e.g., Watts, Detroit)--job opportunities not evenly distributed, non-whites' access to welfare services was unequal
• The 'Great Society'--series of initiatives designed to address economic development and justice, which greatly expanded welfare system

  • advocacy (e.g., getting slums inspected; accompanying people to welfare office; bottom-up community development effots)
  • Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, Head Start, etc.
  • greatly expanded welfare services, but--this is key--the expansion was to make welfare available to a population that had been denied access for decades--this was not an explosion of people seeking 'handouts'

  Business backlash--after a decade of expansion of the welfare system, guess who was 'scapegoated' (blamed)? Strategies used to gain more control over labor markets included:
  
  
• Reducing welfare benefits
• Damaging/discrediting the organized labor movement
• Tightening welfare eligibility criteria
• Makinge welfare assistance conditional
• Deepening the stigma experienced by welfare recipients

Other historical and political factors also shifted the balance of power, such as

• increasing globalization and declining wages (and loss of well-paying jobs through 'outsourcing'),
• shift from full- to part-time employment,
• shift from public- to private-sector jobs (lower wages, less benefits)
• higher divorce rates and more single mothers seeking welfare assistance (that 'feminization of poverty' process we've discussed), and
• an increasing number of groups seen as 'unworthy,' including some among the disabled who were nudged back into the workforce (over 200,000 denied benefits).

Couldn't happen today . . .

• Occupy Wall Street--What would the authors say?
• Press coverage
• Press coverage was minimal (here's Fox's, CNN's coverage), (but findable), here's some action (and here), some would say there was a blackout (not on Amy Goodman's show)