Well, if by this point in the term, I haven’t been able to convince some of you that social work requires empathy, that understanding social welfare without a structural perspective is like comparing a building to pile of bricks, or that many popular assumptions about poverty and the poor are more myth than fact, you would expect I’d give up. Here’s one last attempt for the as-yet unconvinced, synthesized from student reflection papers and classroom discussions over the years.

There are those who say that poor people are lazy and unmotivated. They either have never had to struggle to make ends meet, never had to jump through the various hoops with kids in tow to receive a food box from a judgmental volunteer, or they learned so little from the experience that they forgot, or repressed the memories altogether.

Even more sure: No social class has a monopoly on lack of motivation, but poor people will pay a crueler price for it than any other group.

There are those who say people on welfare assistance should get a job. They’ve either never been unemployed, or never topped out at minimum wage.

One thing the research shows: When the economy suffers, poor people are the first to feel it, they experience it more deeply, and have the hardest time regaining any sort of economic footing. And poverty only feels like a vacation from ‘work’ when you’re observing from afar.

There are those who say that people on food stamps should be tested for drugs, that they don’t deserve taxpayer assistance otherwise. Apparently welfare recipients don’t qualify as ‘too big to fail.’

What we know: The poor are no more likely than any other income group to use illegal drugs. The people and institutions who brought down the economy, and those in government who watched them do it, despite their impaired judgment, have not been asked to submit to drug testing, even though the industry received hundreds of billions in taxpayer-funded ‘bailouts.’ And now that Congress is relaxing and eliminating regulations designed to prevent another meltdown, maybe entirely re-thinking impaired judgment, salaries paid by taxpayers, and drug testing, is in order.

There are those who would sanction or stigmatize welfare recipients who manage to purchase a smart phone, or new shoes, for their children. Most likely their kids have never had problems ‘fitting in,’ or been publicly ridiculed for the clothes they wear.

There are those who say we should end ‘entitlement programs.’ They know a thing or two about entitlement—but they’ve earned theirs. This includes sometimes an inability to mind one’s own business, perhaps even feeling entitled to tell others in the checkout line what they should or shouldn’t buy with EBT cards. It was once said of a former president: ‘He was born on third base, but grew up believing he’d hit a triple.’

There are those who say that expectations of good health don’t constitute a human right. Their health insurance plan for the poor? Don’t get sick. Get a job with benefits. If there isn’t a job with benefits, don’t get sick. Which would obviate the need for Medicaid. But since people do get sick, this drives up health care costs as the poorest among us are forced to use the most expensive health care—the emergency room. And in some states, work for the privilege.

Speaking of getting sick. There are those who would prevent welfare recipients from buying steak with food stamps.  The ‘cheap calorie’ industry (and perhaps the health care industry) depends on such public subsidies. And by the way, so do local economies and retail grocers. SNAP funds (food stamps) circulate several times through local economies; they represent a public investment with beneficial ripple effects.

There are those who say providing health care to everyone is an attack on freedom. They can afford insurance. They can go to the doctor or take their kids when they need to go. No other industrialized country in the world so neglects its poor by denying them basic health care, and then blaming them for needing it. In 2017 there were still 18 states’ governors who refused federal money to fund expanded Medicaid, meaning millions of their citizens, of all ages, still go without insurance. In 2018 citizens of three states had to use the ballot referendum to expand Medicaid coverage where governors refused to do so. Those governors have decent health insurance and plenty of financial backers seeking to reduce taxes and public services, which affords them the luxury of taking cheap political stands and explaining away things like increasing infant and maternal mortality, decreasing life expectancies (which declined nationally for the second year in 2018). 

There are those who think that the above statements—the first parts—are common sense understandings. Sometimes, upon reflection, common sense doesn’t seem so common, or make much sense.

There are those who say that the minimum wage is exceedingly generous. After all, if people’s employers don’t pay them a real living wage (estimated to be over twice the minimum for a family of four with one income earner), they can apply for public assistance, and take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Hey, wait a minute . . . . does that mean the EITC, for all its good, serves a latent function of subsidizing low wage employers at taxpayers’ expense? Naaaaaaah!