In the Austin American Statesman's editorial “Bumper-stickers policy no way to fight poverty,” the author challenges the notion poverty is caused by unemployment. Instead, the author proposes poverty is a matter of underemployment. The author goes on to confront the belief Austin has survived the recession unscathed, when in fact, Austin leads the state in the rate of poverty. The author credits some of the local economic hardships to the cuts in government jobs. Per the author, this leads to a ripple affect impacting the economy negatively (e.g. increased service demands, particularly social services, yet limited manpower). The author insights policymakers to produce change (e.g. improved education, training, job creation, and economically diverse housing) that will mitigate poverty and increase prosperity.
The author’s main audience appears to be policymakers. This seems flawed because in the end it is the public who elect policymakers, and since the status quo predominantly remains unchallenged, as exhibited by Governor Perry’s re-election time and again, it seems most appropriate to persuade the community to demand change. On some level the author does this by referring to “anyone who read a newspaper, watched a television report or read a blog,” which implies the general public cannot claim ignorance to the economic climate of Austin.
Despite the above, much of the author’s content is appears credible. Evidence from the US Census Bureau provides comparable findings to the poverty rate of 19.2% quoted in the editorial. However, the US Census Bureau findings reported data from 2010 and the numbers diverge by 0.8% (18.4% per the US Census Bureau). Granted, the difference is statistically significant, however, the rate of poverty is severe nonetheless. One thing the author’s findings do not reveal is the breakdown of poverty by work experience. While I agree having a job does not mean someone is earning a living wage, the status of employment (e.g. full-time, part-time or unemployed) is significant. According to city-data.com the majority of individuals and families living in poverty were employed part-time or unemployed. The question then becomes is their employment status primarily a reflection of job availability or lack of motivation?
Overall, I agree with the editorial’s message. The local poverty rate is not only morally troubling but also alarming due to the negative implications it has on society (e.g. monetary costs, the potential correlation to crime, and long-term economic prosperity). If the only goal of the editorial is to educate and persuade the public poverty a serious issue, then I feel it was successful. However, if the goal was to produce change I question the author’s success. The author provides no specific examples of how the general population can propagate change. Instead, the author refers to generally accepted means to improve the economy (e.g. job creation, education, etc.). Without specifics it seems difficult for the public to lobby for change, they don’t know where to begin. It seems more appropriate for the author to target specific policies (e.g. taxes) and their impact on poverty instead of poverty in and of itself.
