Poverty, Propinquity and Policy

There is no necessary connection between pov erty and income distribution. When poverty is defined by relative measures, the proportion of impoverished families is the same as it was in 1950. As a result, the urban problems of the United States have been exacerbated. What people spend on house paint, how they travel to work, how long they send their children to school, what public facilities they ask for, how much idle time they will have as adults and how they spend that idle time, all depend at least in part on family in come. While tastes vary greatly, differences in consumption patterns, in human capital investments, in political demands and in propensity or willingness to steal depend importantly on income. Furthermore, if people of very different income levels live close to one another—as they do in cities—these different choices exacerbate class conflict. To escape, those with the means to do so seek to segregate themselves and to surround themselves with moats. They also turn to govern ment for relief. The Great Society programs constituted a use of the political process to ameliorate class conflict by low ering the cost of goods to the poor which the nonpoor wanted them to buy. Nevertheless, the poor did not become accepta ble neighbors for the rest of the nation. Now, the Nixon ad ministration seeks to terminate a good part of the effort. The problems remain; for the moment, however, we as a nation have decided to live with them.