The Easiest Way To Become Poor
The immorality of ability and age as a sentence to eternal poverty in the world's largest economy.
While riding a bus through downtown Oakland, something struck me as we drove under an overpass past a homeless encampment. The bus pole, the sidewalk and adjacent bike lane were consumed by the encampment’s belongings, trash and tents. The people living there were diverse in race, but mostly Black, and in gender. They were sitting in chairs outside their tents, talking among themselves. As the bus slowly drove off and I caught a glimpse inside the remainder of the encampment, I noticed one thing in common: everyone appeared older than 50.
I was terribly disturbed.
It’s hard to not notice how disproportionately elderly homeless people are. In the largest California survey on homelessness ever conducted, half the homeless population was over 50 years old. Since 2017, homeless seniors grew by a whopping 84% in California. Seniors now lead all other age groups in nationwide homelessness growth, with homeless seniors expected to triple in size by 2030, more than any other age group. Believe it or not, that could mean some of you reading this. Another California study found 42% of people without housing — especially people who are chronically homeless — have a disability.
I don’t believe homelessness is exclusively a housing problem (though it mostly is); the shortage of housing simply inflames all other issues. But I also believe that seniors and people with disabilities are facing a basic income problem and pension problem that is intensified by the housing crisis. It is truly revolting that in such a wealthy nation we have increasingly more elderly people and people with mental and physical disabilities dying in tents and cars across the nation.
I enjoy working, and the vast majority of people like or are content to work. But we need to accept that a non-zero number of people cannot work. Usually because of a physical or mental disability, because of old age, or maybe for a host of reasons, they just can’t muster the energy to do it.
Should you or I be condemned to a life of poverty, suffering and premature death if an accident, age or impairment makes work untenable or painful to do? It is sad and disturbing this is even debated. Since the advent of Social Security (SS) and SS Disability Insurance (SSDI), the answer to that question has theoretically been no. But if you become disabled from work that renders your body unable to do labor — and you do not secure a favorable settlement — you are almost certain to live in poverty.
One of out of four people with disabilities is impoverished, twice the rate of the general population. Qualifying for SSDI is so absurdly difficult because of our system's unwarranted wariness for laziness, so many people with demonstrably job-preventing disabilities don’t receive payments. If your mental disability is severe depression or a mental issue more psychological than physiological, it’s significantly harder to acquire SSDI. Even if you do qualify for SSDI payments, with it averaging about $12,000 a year, you will be in poverty virtually anywhere in the United States.
My grandmother had Alzheimer’s and I spent many years in my teens assisting her daily. End-of-life healthcare was absurdly expensive beyond my family’s means. But she was lucky, because she had a family was willing and able to care for her. It’s horrifying to think how many elderly folks in encampments are dealing with the very same illnesses and diseases and are left to die. Friends who care for disabled or elderly family members share a similar realization that if they weren’t there, their loved ones would be out on the streets or dead.
The easiest way to become poor in this country is to obtain a disability or become elderly without a pension or family to care for you. It’s wrong and evil. It’s a great shame on our nation that the value of your life depends only on your ability to work. That we don’t have a basic, standard minimum where we say that no matter your ability to work, you deserve healthcare, housing and a basic income.
What would a moral turnaround look like? First, we need to save Social Security. Republicans charge that Social Security is going bankrupt, which is partially true. But Social Security can easily be funded if we eliminated the payroll tax cap on those making over $160,000 a year. Social Security would be completely in the black without raising the existing tax rates to expand services.
The same faux-fiscal responsibility mantra that has handicapped Social Security and disqualifies thousands from disability insurance is the same one that undid life-saving pandemic-era unemployment insurance, child tax credits and rental subsidies: the idea that if you can’t work, you don’t deserve to eat or live.
During the pandemic, we caught a glimpse of how a more social democratic America might appear. Our economy didn’t collapse — we saw boosted economic stimulus and greater disposable income. Young and able-bodied people didn’t drop out of the workforce as was foretold, but elderly workers got an opportunity to retire a little early and leave the workforce. Inequalities like child poverty and housing instability declined thanks to relief funds and the child tax credit, while we still remained a generally capitalist, mixed-economic system. We chose to let these services expire because a large contingent of conservatives genuinely feel better about themselves if they see others suffer.
But beyond saving Social Security, I’m increasingly of the opinion that we should have a universal basic income in the U.S. It’s an idea popular among both social democratic left-wingers and centrist altruists. That people on fixed incomes fall into homelessness so quickly indicates that the increased cost of housing requires a housing fix. But longstanding issues such as pensioners in poverty and those with disabilities unable to live decently and with dignity are income problems. A lot of seniors who grew up poor didn’t pay taxes and are not entitled to Social Security and will work till they die. Something U.B.I could fix.
I’d figure putting between $10,000 to $30,000 a year in the pocket of any American who can’t work full-time — regardless of the why — could help keep our streets clear, keep families housed, keep seniors in good health and allow people with disabilities a chance to live more comfortably in old age.
Economic stability actually encourages employment. The pilot U.B.I program in Stockton, California of an unconditional $6,000 a year, proved to increase full-time employment by 12% among recipients, and improved their many mental health and economic issues. It’s a myth that people are inherently lazy and won’t work if starvation and housing insecurity aren’t a constant threat.
Right. If we just increased the bottom earners incomes by 20k, home prices would probably go up a similar amount. Housing problems require housing solutions. The appeal of UBI and SS is that it'll keep people out of poverty and less vulnerable to housing problems but its not a substitute for housing.
Not that these policies would be opposed by most of the readers here, but that and a lot more low cost options for social housing (that were eliminated over the years as “unsightly” but no alternatives replaced them).
It’s a bit of a wonky perspective, but without that, you might get housing inflation that crowds out benefit to this specific target group that UBI would ideally help. Shortages in goods where it is hard to bring more supply online, or it takes a long time (... like housing) will generate inflation with more spending rather than real goods.
That’s not an argument, obviously, to not build housing--building it actually the optimal solution--though it’s more a “yes, and” thing here where having an optimal outcome to our challenges today take a lot of coordinated policies together.