People Like Us

Question 1:

Mantsios claims that the poor are invisible to us and the media contributes to this. What do you think of that claim in light of the Mantsios article, Ehrenreich article, and the People Like Us video we watched in class? The poor is invisible to us just as the Mantsios article states. It is invisible in the sense that many people frame the poor as urban black or Hispanic people that have their own culture that need not to be interfered with. On the other hand what people fail to acknowledge as the Mantsios article states a majority of the nation's poor people are rural or suburban white Americans who hold jobs part of the year. The media plays into these statistics by highlighting certain aspects of these facts and parlaying them into a feasible news story. What resonated with me the most in the Mantsios article and the People Like Us video is the fact that what we consider poor in America is not what is technically poor. As stated in the Mantsios article and shown in the movie is that white suburban/ rural people make up the majority of impoverished people in the U.S. also the fact that being monetarily wealthy doesn't mean that you're upper class. The People Like Us video made it pretty clear to me that the poor are invisible not because of monetary reasons but because they lack the traits of being upper class. It is obvious that money is needed to be considered upper class but if a person lacks the upbringing, the attitude, and connections needed to be elite in a class than they are just financially rich. My brother went to a very well-known private school in Connecticut; many of his friends came from wealthy backgrounds. Many of the kids parents ran in the same social circle, my mother on the other hand is a working-class single mom. Although my brother had no troubles fitting in at school (my mother worked hard to provide him with what he needed) my mother felt like an outcast whenever she attended parental functions. She would always wear her best business clothes and change her jewelry to appear that she too was sophisticated (not that she wasn't). I remember her telling me, “All the clothes in the world isn't going to help me hold a conversation with these parents”. My mom had nothing in common socially with these parents, they were in different worlds. My mom didn't have a country club membership nor did she spend winters in Florida. My mom was invisible at those functions even if she was financially equal to them she still wouldn't socially be equal to them.
Question 2:
Gans believes that inequality exists in every society, but he also believes there are alternatives to the extent of poverty which exists. As we will discuss, the U.S., as compared to other western (and some nonwestern) nations (and compared to itself just 30 years ago) is a much more unequal society. What do we do about poverty? Should we do anything about it? Why or why not? You must react to the readings by Gans and Block et al. And critically reflect on how your opinions might be shaped by your own social class position, your own upbringing, and as an American?

In the U.S., poverty is always going to exist. The way our economy works and is designed there is always going to be a wealthy elite group, a middle class (which is narrowing), and there will always be the poor. Capitalism is designed to have people working toward a goal (wealth/ social superiority). I think that the U.S. along with other countries will never eliminate the poor because Americans don't want to be equal it is a characteristic of being American. If we look at the Affordable Care Act, the government shutdown because they cannot come to an agreement on equal affordable healthcare for all Americans. Why can't they come to an agreement? Capitalism is the answer healthcare at the end of the day is a business and by making it affordable and equalizing opportunities for Americans than money will be lost. Money being lost means that wealth and superiority cannot be gained. The U.S. should do something about the poor. There are programs that help the poor but so many of them target specific groups and leave so many people in the dust. The government should work on programs that target specific cases rather than having general guidelines. Personally, I feel like my family belongs to a specific group of Americans that are above the poverty line but below the middle class. So there are many government programs that we do not qualify for because we technically make too much money. At the same time there is variety of necessities that my family at times cannot afford. I do believe that poverty can be extinguished to a certain extent and my background helps me to understand that. I am the daughter of two immigrants who are not wealthy/ comfortable but have made it their priority to raise my brother and I to be successful and caring individuals. In my neighborhood parents who are not well- to do tend to ignore the bad behavior that their children do and don’t enforce education and other activities that can help with the path to success. If parents continue to not take active roles in their child’s upbringing poverty continues in that way because generations will only do what the generation before them set as an example. Poverty in that sense can be eliminated if parents to enforce being caring and successful individuals rather than turning a side eye to their children.