Talk:Working poor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Working poor is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

I have added a Globalize tag to the Definition and Causes sections. I'm not even going to get into the discussion about neutrality, but the article mostly deals with the United States, with a cursory treatment of Europe. The single sentence under Causes for Europe adds nothing to the article, and seems to be there more for the form of the thing than to add to the article. - Kleio08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.186.139 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This article's neutrality is in dispute? Well, I guess when the facts themselves are biased, what is one to do? When did Fox News buy the Wikipedia?

Lolz nice comment person above... I agree, I see no POV in this article - it factually describes the situation that many people (including one family I know) find/found themselves in. Where is the POV dispute here, can someone pls comment? 69.227.23.179 18:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also see nothing controversial. But the locale is not stated (implicitly it is the USA). It would be better to have a broader geographic perspective.

Pdn 03:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 POV issues 2 NPOV abuse by Overzealous Wiki admins and BOFH 3 The poor are with us and some do work 4 The USA - deliberately planned poverty 5 POV item 6 cleanup 7 medcabal

[edit] POV issues

Well, I don't particularly share these viewpoints, but the POV issues would probably be listed as follows

A contrast against the ideal portrayed in Horatio Alger novels, wherein determination and a strong work ethic could lift a person from poverty into middle class comfort, the term "working poor" describes those who work hard by necessity yet do not escape poverty, although it they have a job and work hard, they have some of of the cultural and social capital to get ahead.

The implication of this paragraph is that people sometimes cannot pull themselves up by hard work and discipline, an idea that conservatives would generally disagree with.

[jdsahr: what difference does it make whether conservatives disagree with this? If a class of people live frugally, work full time, and are poor, what should they be called? ]

When wage controls such as minimum wages are not set, workers without marketable skills will often face low wages, harsh working conditions, and few opportunities to attain skills that would allow them to escape their undesirable situations, especially if libraries, schools and student loans are unavailable. Traditionally, before unionization and the child labor laws of the early 20th century, these individuals were manipulated into positions of debt (often as early as 12 or 13 years of age) by their employers. Laborers often lived in company towns and received wages that were deliberately set too low to cover their housing and board costs.

This is pretty much an argument for for a higher minimum wage and strong unions, two things that many conservatives contend actually weaken the economy and hurt more in the long run.

[jdsahr: again --- who cares what conservatives *think*! Is this article about the "working poor" or about the delicate sensibilities of "conservatives"?]

Another general issue with this article is that it states far too many "facts" using words like often or rarely, without actually quoting any numbers or quantifiable data. It would be far data to talk about consumer debt, median incomes, and other factors that illustrate the concept of the working poor. --CVaneg 01:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[jdsahr: the gripe about "facts" unsupported by citations is appropriate.]

Strong unions are not the solution, because they haven't formed them despite a supportive legal environment with mandatory recognition, mandatory negotiation and anti-trust exemptions. Apparently, too much social and cultural capital is also required to form a strong union.--Silverback 08:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[jdsahr: Not sure what "they" is referring to. The existence (in the US) of a supportive legal environment for unions is certainly debatable.]

It isn't going to be a good faith debate if you don't care what the other side thinks.--Silverback 05:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Note that I am only trying to outline why this article might be perceived as having a POV which others said they could not see. I am not advocating rewriting this article just so that it has a different, but equally biased POV. --CVaneg 08:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uh..."Does not mean they should not..." that's clearly not neutral. It's an opinion, not a fact, but is presented as a fact.

I'm just going to insert here a link to the U.S. Census who does not define the term "working poor" at all for several reasons that were left out of the article: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/definitions.html - The problem is we are creating an article regarding a subjective term and not an objective one. So there are often going to be conflicts in opinion regarding the issue. In this way, it is POV and often coming from two sides- the article is very short on any citations other than a few initial links citing the bureau of labor and statistics. But the government's standards only measure agaist a predetermined income level or set line. The article seems to swerve one direction and then another and then back to the original direction. There is no mention of the possibility that some under-report their income (waiters, waitresses and some who may lose benefits should the government know their income level, mid-to-high level drug dealers, recent immigrants with limited skills or reporting to the government using false documentation, etc.), or not report any income at all. The next problem is that when we say working poor - are we referring to those who are under this government-created line at the time of measure or do we look at the cyclical nature of employment where people may rise and fall into or under the definition of "working poor". Do people predominately rise out of the "working poor" or do they fluctuate? I would prefer this article be rewritten in its entirety. --Aoco 02:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV abuse by Overzealous Wiki admins and BOFH

agree that Wikipedia is becoming excessively Fox News-ian and way too politically correct in censoring factual information as POV, esp any articles on right wing extremism, or any suggestion that facts suggest George Bush lied re WMD etc etc

[edit] The poor are with us and some do work

I have tried to present the proposition that there are people who want to work, do work but cannot earn enough to take themselves above the poverty line. I have removed references to extreme exploitation and tried to reflect what is happening in typical western societies. The links I have provided relate to work being done in Australia and New Zealand by government departments and academics. Tiles 06:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It still reads like a POV political essay. The US has low taxes and even tax credits for child care and health insurance that are arguably more "enlightened" than those in other countries, and the US has a de facto (if not de jure) open door immigration policy welcoming the poor of other countries, who are seeking the opportunity to become one of the US working poor. It is not povery relative to ones own society that matters, poverty relative to other countries and historically precedent matter also. Those who say they don't are just trying to encourage a victim mentality. Today's working poor are descended from a long line of successful survivors, and are usually managing to succeed by the only standard that matters in the long run, reproduction.--Silverback 04:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Poverty relative to society expressly matters, especially in the United States, which does not have emphasis on extended family or the benefit of community living. Living within a certain culture makes one expressly aware of the differences in social and economic levels. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The USA - deliberately planned poverty

The USA has the worst poverty rates (both absolute and relative) in the developed world and yet at the same time has the one of the world's highest per capita GDP. One should concentrate on how this differentiates the USA from the rest of the developed world in terms of literacy, mortality rates, and crime. The arguement that the American poor are not as poor as other nations is false. . . . .Working on the checkout in Walmart USA earns you about 5$ and hour. Working on the checkout in Walmart UK earns you 9$ + complete health insurance + subsidised housing + subsidised child care. Poverty in both the developed world and undeveloped world is more about access to education and health care than wealth per se, and in both cases is measure of the effectiveness of government. Countries can be 'poor' in financial terms but punch well above thier financial resources in terms of the education and health of thier citizens - Costa Rica and Cuba are two examples. Similarly, countries like the USA, in which some states struggle to compete with Cuba, can perform appalling badly.

In terms of bias, the question is, is it politically biased to mention that many Americans are worse off than Cubans on about 10 times the national income per capita? Is it politically biased to show what a poor performer the USA is in this area?

Any factual, evidence based article is going to conflict with Americans image of themselves as wealthy and powerful. Does evidence that contradicts popular belief constitute bias?

A major edit will follow. . .. . .

Albanaich

[edit] POV item

--Genobeeno 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) The sentence:

"If those facilities are available and are not exploited, then the reasons for this should be explored before time and energy are expended on the elements of society who do not, rather than cannot, make use of them."

I'm not sure where any "should" enters into this article. This is not describing anything, it is making a recommendation to action and is, therefore, POV, and should be removed or rephrased, no?

[edit] cleanup

"This phenomenon is expressed in the saying, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

Adds nothing, removed.

"unexpected costs related to healthcare, appliance repairs, school fees or utility bills"

School fees and utilities are not unexpected costs. And unless these people own their own homes, why are they repairing their own appliances?

Plenty of renters rent apartments that do not come furnished with appliances. I'm one of them. And various additional fees and utility-related expenses do come up regularly. If you are living from check to check, just barely making ends meet each time, a "one-time" fee here and there is all it takes to send you over the edge.aluxeterna 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"In contrast to the ideal portrayed in Horatio Alger novels, where determination and a strong work ethic can lift a person from poverty into middle class comfort, the "working poor" are those who work hard yet do not escape poverty."

Adds little - editorializing and highly generalized. Removed.

--Ur Wurst Enema 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with most of these changes.

"This phenomenon is expressed in the saying, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

This *is*, after all, a very oft-stated saying in regards to the working poor, and it links to the concept of wealth condensation well. I can see it being left out for being trite, perhaps, if somebody can come up with a good way to link in the concept of wealth condensation.

As for appliance repair costs, often tenants find themselves paying for various repairs despite any obligations their landlord might have.

Furthermore, I think the Horatio Alger line adds quite a bit towards the scope of the article; it shows a diametrically opposite viewpoint that is well-known. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"I can see it being left out for being trite,"

It is not left out for being trite. It is left out because it does nothing to elucidate the concept of "working poor." If you think it describes "wealth condensation," that's fine. But this article is not about wealth condensation.

"As for appliance repair costs, often tenants find themselves paying for various repairs despite any obligations their landlord might have."

Well, that is an empirical question that this article does not really answer. However since there is already a "needs citations" tag I figure that's already covered.

"Furthermore, I think the Horatio Alger line adds quite a bit towards the scope of the article; it shows a diametrically opposite viewpoint that is well-known."

No, adding a "viewpoint" as you say would give this article nothing more than NPOV and unencyclopedic tags. Is that what you want? --Ur Wurst Enema 05:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The concept of working poor is already an inherently POV topic. Adding the comparison to Alger allows for a neutral point of view. The addition of other dimensions of the topic allows for a better article. I'm certainly willing to do without the trite saying "the rich get richer", provided that we can figure out a better way to link the concept of wealth condensation (other than "see also"). I'm not going to debate the neccesity of the various costs (appliance, etc.). I hope that the change I made is satisfactory. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the allusion to Alger is editorializing. It is commentary about the concept of working poor, rather than explication of what it actually is. Not very encyclopedic and borderline on NPOV. --Ur Wurst Enema 07:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentions of the Alger ethic are common within literature concerning working poor. See this, or this example. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And as I suspected, neither are even close to being encyclopedic. One is quoted from The Nation, and the other is also highly editorial in style. Neither is close to NPOV. One even claims that work ethic is a "myth." Give me a break.

In addition, as I read this article again I find the words "often," "many," and "few" in nearly every sentence. Not only are they totally unspecific (what's often? 5%? 10%? 90%?), they are uncited. --Ur Wurst Enema 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are certainly editorials, but they are also certainly serious discussions on the subject. The fact that neither article I showed you is encyclopedic is precisely why they haven't been listed as sources on the article. It is rational to expect that when you're discussing a topic that has an inherent POV, that its opposite should be referenced. I don't see why this should be so difficult. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] medcabal

Hello -- I was called in as part of medcabal about a conflict over this article: [1].

Can Ur and Tim please explain very briefly (i.e., in one short sentence) what the conflict is about? Looking at the article, there need to be inline sources [2] for specific claims. I personally don't see much of a problem with the Horatio Alger paragraph, it seems rather harmless, but we can certaintly discuss.

Please note that when it comes to sources there are going to be disagreements and most sources -- except for those coming out of university quantative sociology departments -- are going to have some sort of POV; that is not a sufficient reason not to use them as sources. Sdedeo (tips) 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I find that the Alger paragraph comes across as commentary, giving the article editorial slant. I believe this justifies the neutrality disclaimer currently on this article.

I also find the Alger paragraph to be critical and dismissive of both Alger and his idea of work ethic as a beneficial force. This could also be a POV issue. Ur Wurst Enema 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article itself could be helped by more inline sources. However I believe that the Alger work ethic should be presented as a meaningful counterpoint to the working poor concept. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. The question is, does Horatio Alger deny the existence of the working poor? e.g., does Alger say that everyone who remains poor is lazy and not working? In that case, it seems rather unambiguous that the Alger paragraph should appear -- as long as we have some source for the Alger opinion. On the other hand, if Alger doesn't deny the existence of the working poor, then it is probably incorrect to describe the concept of "working poor" as "in contrast" to Alger's ideas. Tim, could you provide a source for something like the Alger claim I suggest? Sdedeo (tips) 21:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Alger doesn't appear to categorically support or deny the existence of the working poor, but his works generally epitomise an ideal that is commonly used as support by detractors of the working poor concept. On the other hand, it is also referenced by supporters of the issue, as a contrast (which you can see in the links I provided earlier). Alger's viewpoint of the American Dream, for example should be pretty clear, although his views on living conditions can't quite be expected to apply to modern society. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just looking over the Alger page, it seems that Alger places great importance on "luck" (e.g., one of his novels is "Luck and Pluck".) So it is probably incorrect to describe Alger as promoting the idea that there is no such thing as the (truly) "working poor." However, I suggest that one excellent (very excellent) solution would be a description (and sourcing) of the uses of Alger's work by detractors and supporters of the concept of the "working poor". That IMO would be great -- do you want to try to work up a paragraph on that? Sdedeo (tips) 22:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand Alger correctly, his ideal is simply that if one worked hard, he could improve his status. He did *not* say, "if you work hard then you definitely won't be poor," and it's contrapositive implication that if you are poor, you're definitely not working hard. Given that Alger wrote the former and not the latter, it seems improper that we write "this is in contrast to Alger's ideal," as we would then basically imply that work ethic is worthless (which would certainly be dubious and probably not neutral).

I assume that Tim is trying to include the idea that while Alger himself may not have said that the working poor doesn't exist, some of our contemporaries might believe and espouse that. However I believe that the title and first paragraph are sufficient to cover that without explicitly bringing up the contrasting idea. As such, I believe the best course of action is simply to delete the paragraph. The real problem with this article (lack of citation/empirical weight) could then be addressed. Ur Wurst Enema 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Given our discussion so far, I believe that the best solution is for Tim to contribute a paragraph discussing the uses of Alger by critics and supporters of the concept. However, he many not have time to do that. In the meantime, I suggest the best solution is to delete the paragraph that claims Alger opposed the concept of working poor and take off the "disputed" tag. Ur and Tim, please wait for a moment; Tim, please chime in with whether or not you'd be able to write the larger paragraph, and if you object to the deletion solution as well. If I don't hear back from you within 24 hours, I'll remove the tag and delete the para. Ur, it would be best if I took care of this just because I'm sort of more "neutral", being the mediator. Sdedeo (tips) 17:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what it is that bringing in either Alger or his ideal to this article would accomplish. Are we going to criticize Alger? This article is not about him.

Are we going to criticize his ideal that working hard is good? That would be pretty dubious.

Are we going to discuss how other people might be using some sort of misrepresentation of Alger's ideal to deny the concept of working poor? Then we are no longer talking about either Alger or his ideal but other people and theirs.

Not to poison the well, but I just doubt that Alger can be brought in in such a way that would be both neutral and beneficial to the article. Ur Wurst Enema 18:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, we are not going to criticize Alger, nor are we going to criticize his beliefs; neither would satisfy NPOV. Instead I suggested to Tim that we, as you say "discuss how other people might be using some sort of misrepresentation of Alger's ideal to deny the concept of working poor." This is relevant to the concept of the working poor -- don't you think? To make an analogy (and I am terrifyingly close to Godwin's Law), we definitely discuss how Nietzsche has been used (and misinterpreted) by others to support various kinds of racial supremacy. If Alger is, as Tim suggests and I think is rather a priori reasonable, a point of reference for people in the discussion, we should talk about it, but only if we can get NPOV and verifiable.

Anyway, Ur, let's wait to hear back from Tim. Sdedeo (tips) 18:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this. I wouldn't mind writing a paragraph on interpretation of Alger as applied to Working poor, but I'm not quite sure how to go about it. Any advice?

I'd hope that any failure to produce a paragraph immediately would not constitute overall failure, but would also hope that in the intervening time, some sort of invisible placeholder could be made for the disputed information. Looking forward to your response, Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi Tim -- what I'm going to do is rm the current para and the tag, so that there's no time pressure.

Here would be my advice for writing a para: "One common point of reference in discussing the question of the WP has been the work of Horatio Alger. On the one hand, those who disagree with the concept of the WP see HA as suggesting X, and thus that Y (source, source, souce). On the other hand, those who consider the concept of the WP useful see HA as suggesting A, and thus B (source source source)."

OK -- good luck! Sdedeo (tips) 14:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK -- I haven't heard back further from either Ur or Tim on this issue, so I'm going to consider the dispute closed: the original Alger para has been removed, and Tim has a suggestion for further Alger discussion that Ur seems not to have objected to. Everyone seems to not have objected in more than 24 hours, so I'll close out the mediation. Sdedeo (tips) 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)