Pundits, particularly conservative ones, often like to say that one can follow a sequence to avoid poverty in America: Graduate high school. Find a job, even a humble one. And delay childbearing until after marriage. Do that, and the odds of being poor are quite low.

But these things can be much easier said than done, and they can be cold comfort to those who have not been able to follow the sequence. Critics point out that not all parts of the sequence may be equally important, and that it may be much easier for some people to follow the sequence than others, not through their own failures, but through failing schools, lack of job opportunities, and lack of marriage partners, among other problems. These obstacles aren’t equally distributed across America, so the picture actually gets fuzzier the closer we look at it.

This month we’ve invited four experts to discuss the so-called “success sequence,” and the strengths and weaknesses of this idea as a way of thinking about poverty. Cato’s own Michael D. Tanner has written the lead essay, and responses will be from Isabel V. Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, Professor Philip N. Cohen of the University of Maryland at College Park, and Professor W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia. Discussion among the four is open through the remainder of the month. We also welcome readers’ comments for the same period.