Inner-city poor

Poverty or marginalized groups may be identified as people who are unable to care for themselves or their families, as well as, the few who are prone to antisocial behaviour. Another suitable concept for marginalized people was put forward by Karl Marx. He indicated that the underclass was shaped and dominated by a society’s economic and political force but have no productive role.

The marginalized class is characterized as a fragment of wealthy societies that interconnects among diverse social problems. It is this paradox of poverty in an otherwise affluent society that efforts are made strenuously to eradicate. 

 The poverty paradox is seen in elements that work towards reducing poverty. This includes strong economic growth, government transfers to persons of billions of dollars per year, improved universal and public education systems, increased minimum wage, and increased housing subsidies. However, the marginalized groups remain at a disadvantage. B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada at 18.6 % and single parent families (mostly female parents) with children, is on the increase at 49.8 per cent. Without living wage standards parents and other caregivers who work for low wages face impossible choices such as buying food, heat the house, feed the children, or pay rent. The result is spiralling debt, constant anxiety and long-term health problems.

There are many poor people who are not members of the marginalized class. This includes the elderly poor, widows, youth without family support, mental illness, physical disability, and those who suddenly found themselves plunged into poverty without warning. Similarly, there are people who engage in activities that is said to be characteristic of marginalized people who are not poor. For example, among the rich and famous you can find laziness, unreliability, drug and alcohol addiction, and episodic romantic attachments.  Some analysts believe the poverty paradox is only one manifestation of a much more general deterioration of society. The major problem is the way in which spreading marginalized groups are undermining the province capacity, family life, social integration, and political stability.   

 According to Christopher Jencks & Paul E. Peterson in The Urban Underclass, 1992, “one can differentiate four separate explanations of the poverty paradox.” This includes the inadequate programs of social services, the culture of poverty, the perverse incentives provided by welfare assistance, and the disproportionate effects of changes in the international economy.  Each explanation addresses the way in which the urban poor have contributed to a poverty paradox. Clearly there is a need to offer policy recommendations designed to resolve this paradox.

Inadequate programs of social services in Canada as well as in the United States, is in my opinion, a society in which the myth of equal opportunity has obscured a reality of submerged class conflict, racial discrimination, and tolerance of economic inequality . Similar to Americans, Canadians have relied on natural resources, provincial government systems instead of federal, a large private market, and a private dynamic economic growth to resolve social tensions.  As a result, extremes of wealth and poverty have emerged side by side. Although some efforts to improve these conditions were made in the wake of the Canadian depression between 1929 -1939, the country is too committed to individual freedom and too suspicious of government to redistribute wealth in such a way as to meet the needs of the poor.

The culture of poverty is a cultural explanation of the relationship between the poor and the poverty paradox. It holds that the lifestyle to which the urban poor have become attached is self-perpetuating. Street life can be exhilarating – in the short run. In a country where jobs are dismal, arduous, or difficult to obtain and hold, it is more fun to hang out, plan parties and use drugs. Gangs provide young people thrills, perceived protection, prestige, and money. When men cannot earn enough to support their families, they avoid enduring relationships with their female companions, and some women cannot earn enough to support their families or themselves, turn to prostitution.    

Most people who are marginalized I interviewed, experienced personal disappointments, insults or affronts, and rejections, as a product of broad social forces – class dominance, racial prejudice and discrimination, cultural exclusiveness – over which they, as individuals, had little control. This explanation however often becomes self-fulfilling, both for the individual and the group as a whole. The more one rejects the system, the less one is willing to study or work and the more one is rejected by the societal mainstream.

A glimmer of hope is to become politically active citizens as a means to helping poor neighborhoods. In this way these communities will be less depoliticized by the many economic and social ills that affect them. Whatever general issues they are subjected to, the neighborhoods can remain integrally involved in citywide politics.

Research shows that poor people living in poor neighborhoods differ little in their attitudes from poor people living in middle-class communities.

In conclusion it may safely be stated that two lifestyles tug at young people living in poor neighborhoods; the stable family with its belief in upward mobility and options for the future. The street culture which revolves around violence, drugs, sex, having babies, and other problem behaviours is the second lifestyle. The neighborhood can be predominantly street-oriented or a liveable community. Accordingly, lifestyles depend on the individual and on the neighborhood itself. Equally important is the class background of the young person. All teenagers are at risk and vulnerable to the alluring street culture, and most will flirt with the experience, many will successfully resist.  Those who are not well parented and raised with optimism toward the future may linger in the street culture and may eventually succumb to its standards.

The street culture can proliferate. As economic conditions deteriorate, the street culture grows, and more residents adopt its standards of behaviour. When things improve, those who are better off leave the street and the most desperate people are left behind increasingly isolated from the responsible families and the successful role models they provide.

This is a simplistic thesis that views culture from a mainstream ideal. The differences between the inner-city poor and wealthy countries are far more complex and require greater research.