Our new issue, “After Bernie,” is out now. Our questions are simple: what did Bernie accomplish, why did he fail, what is his legacy, and how should we continue the struggle for democratic socialism? Get a discounted print subscription today !

The poverty discourse in America is a train wreck. You either find people claiming that poverty is a complicated and intractable problem, or you find people eager to make dubious claims about how some pet project of theirs will have dramatic antipoverty side effects. What you rarely find are people willing to shoot you straight about the basic mechanics of where poverty comes from and how to fix it. This is a shame, because poverty is not a difficult thing to get your head around. You can even explain it in a few brief statements: capitalist economies only distribute income to workers and those who own a lot of wealth; many people in society neither work nor own a lot of wealth; and those people very often end up in poverty as a result. Given this understanding, the obvious fix to the poverty problem is to build up a welfare state that distributes income to those capitalism neglects. This is how low-poverty countries around the world do things, and this is how we could do things if we wanted to.

Half of the Population Does Not Work Discussions of poverty will normally start with figures about poverty itself. But in many ways, the following graph is far more illuminating. What this graph shows is how much people receive from earnings (wages, salaries, self-employment income, and farm income) at each percentile of the earnings distribution. As you move from left to right on the graph, you notice that every percentile has zero dollars in earnings until you get to the forty-ninth percentile. This means that around 49 percent of people in society have no labor income. That is, they are nonearners. Despite making up a slight minority of the overall population, nonearners make up around 80 percent of all the poor people in the country. This is true if you measure poverty based on market income and true if you measure poverty based on disposable income (meaning market income plus benefits like Social Security). The reason the nonearner share of the poor population is so high is because the nonearner poverty rate is so high. More than one-third of nonearners are in poverty based on market income, and more than one-fifth are in poverty based on disposable income. The poverty rates for earners are much lower. Now, you might think that what this all shows is that to fight poverty we need to convert nonearners into earners. And that is true to some degree: full employment is important, and we could do more to make sure people can find jobs. But the number of nonearners who could be turned into earners is actually quite small. Around 46 percent of nonearners are children below the age of eighteen. Another 24 percent are elderly people aged sixty-five and above. Ten percent are disabled. Six percent are students. Eight percent are family caregivers. With some exceptions, these are not people who could or should be activated into the labor force.

Who Are the Poor? If we focus directly on the poor themselves, rather than using nonearners as a proxy for them, we reach the same basic conclusions about who is in poverty and who is not. The following graphs break the poor population into nine groups. The first graph uses a poverty measure based on market incomes, while the second uses one based on disposable incomes. Most of the groups are self-explanatory. The exception is “Fully Employed,” which refers to people who worked fifty or more weeks during the year. In both graphs, children, elderly, disabled people, and students make up around 70 percent of the poor. If you add in carers and those already fully employed, the number goes to around 90 percent. There is room to activate some of these folks into the labor market, especially carers through the provision of child care and paid leave benefits. But for the most part, the poor are people who cannot and should not work. Consistent with the section on earners and nonearners above, what you find when you look at poverty rates based on market income is that fully employed people have low rates while everyone else has high rates. When you look at poverty rates based on disposable income, you see something similar, except that elderly people now have a semi-respectable poverty rate because of Social Security.