Monthly Archives: April 2013

Katz Response

Leave a reply

Michael B. Katz’s “ From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America,” begins by talking about how in the late 1970s to early 1990s, “underclass” meant poor, black people, who were in the midst of the crumbling core of the nation’s inner cities. However, by the early 21st century, no one really talked or wrote about the “underclass” anymore, but they instead “celebrated the entrepreneurial energy and talent latent within poor people who were waiting for the spark of opportunity to transform their lives.” I thought this was interesting because I never really heard or read people say this, and I don’t think this really applies to everyone who is poor. There are of course differences, as is discussed in the chapter amongst those in poverty, and while there are those who are trying to get work, but there just no opportunities, I think most people tend to focus on the “undeserving” poor, which is quite sad since this would tend to lead to a negative about those who receive government assistance.

In the chapter, Katz talks about the categorization of the poor into the deserving poor, those who are clearly helpless, and those who suffered circumstances beyond their control and proved to be willing to work for anything, even small things, and the undeserving poor, which includes those who committed crimes and did drugs or were dependent on the government, without really trying to get out and live on their own.  While is can be useful to separate the poor in such a way when talking about who should get benefits and such, a kind of separation like this can also be incorrect because it just looks at the surface.

For example, many people who commit crimes and do drug, may simply be a product of the environment they were in. If a person is around such activity from a young age, and they don’t really see much else, there is a big chance that is what they will do as well because that’s all they really know. In a situation like this, they were really deserving poor when young, and in addition to that, there could be so many other factors that lead to their lifestyle when older, and simply categorizing them as underserving poor isn’t really right or helpful. There should be an emphasis on helping people get out of poverty to prevent this type of thing, which I believe education is a large part of, as was also mentioned.

The War on Poverty emphasized opportunity, not by focusing on the labor market, but by improving individual skills through education and job training. I think this is a really important thing to focus on when helping the poor. Of course money is important, but by improving their skills would have a more profound and lasting impact and would allow them to stand on their own two feet and not depend on the government. It’s also important for the education system to help the young people in poverty so they have a way out and can do more for themselves.

Something that caught my eye was about Muhammad Yunus and how he began to lend poor women small amount of money to start their own businesses. I’ve read about various types of programs like this, some that allow people to loan to the poor all over the world to start business, and also others that are more community based and have women who form a group and decide who to lend money to. I think this is a really good way to help the poor who have skills and want to work and get out of poverty, but just don’t have the means to. This not only helps the poor, but also society as a whole, with more entrepreneurs and less people dependent on the government.

Response to Katz “From Underclass to Entrepreneur”

Leave a reply

In “From Underclass to Entrepreneur,” Katz brings up the term “underclass” and goes into length defining the term and describing the connotations. It surprised me that this term was used recently in the 70s and 80s though I had never heard the term used in such a way before. What is more surprising is how much New York City has changed since then. Underclass, used to describe New York’s urban inner city areas, “conjured up a mysterious wilderness in the heart of America’s cities; a terrain of violence and despair.” The New York now, with it’s much lower crime rates, doesn’t seem to resemble the dangerous urban area filled with the “underclass” as it used to be.

It was interesting to read about Brace’s 1854 report about how “the growing density of America’s cities had eroded the character of their inhabitants.” Unlike Jane Jacobs’ ideas of how a bustling city would be a safer one, Brace argued that the density and over crowding was “corrupting” others around those areas. Housing reformers from the 1900s had similar reactions to slums, labeling them as “viruses infecting the moral and physical health of the city districts that surrounded them.” Poorer districts were considered to be an infection of the city and were avoided in order to prevent contamination.

From such an attitude towards the slums grew the distinction between the “deserving and undeserving poor.” Those whose misfortunes came about accidentally, such as in the case of a widowed women, were labeled the deserving poor. Unskilled, minority, or unwilling to work men, especially alcoholics, were considered undeserving and “sentiment … did not shift in [their] favor.” Thus campaigns were run to deplete such people from relief programs.

Michael Porter brought up several very interesting points regarding these inner-city neighborhoods. He spoke about the potential of these areas to “create wealth.” I agree with his point that policies should get out of the “trap of redistributing wealth,” which doesn’t create any real value, and instead work with an economic model to develop profitable businesses that would benefit the people and the communities. Porter claimed such areas had four concrete competitive advantages such as a “strategic location” in the middle of the city, high “local market demand” in an unsaturated market, “potential for integration,” and vast “human resources” of people who are eager to work. The policies of the government and other sectors mainly needed to provide a “hospitable environment” to allow for such businesses to grow. Porter was successful with some of his theories after developing the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City and opened up thousands of jobs in small businesses for people in inner-city areas.

A more recent program to help out such neighborhoods included Bloomberg’s Opportunity NYC. Not particularly effective, the program was said to award the “undeserving poor” by providing incentives for “parents who had not been sending their children to school regularly.” I don’t think any similar programs can be effective since there may always be a population to take advantage and be incentivized to do less in order to receive benefits. Something that encourages people to invest in themselves and the surrounding community may be more effective but the question remains of how to implement such a program without too much policy involvement.

Katz – “From Underclass to Entrepreneur” || Response

Leave a reply

In the excerpt, “From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America”, Katz talks about how the expression “underclass” evolved over time. During the late twentieth century, “underclass” was used to describe the poor, especially poor black women. The term also described the life of drugs, crime, high poverty, and urban decay. And thus, America’s inner cities were deemed as “a terrain of violence and despair”. I personally think that these characteristics actually describe just being “underclass” and not poverty. One can choose a life of drugs and crime and not necessarily be poor. One can choose to ignore education. That is what I define as “underclass”.

At the turn of the century however, these same people are seen as highly motivated and ambitious. Because of their low social status, they wanted to prove to everyone that they were not a lower class of people. Katz states that the label essentially became a metaphor of social transformation. Formerly described as “underclass”, these individuals jumped at any opportunity and became entrepreneurs. Market-based technologies certainly helped the poor obtain this newfound status.

Katz discussed exactly how market-based technologies gave the poor a boost. Four market-based strands were intertwined with poverty work, including “place-based initiatives that intended to unleash poor people as consumers by rebuilding markets in inner-cities; microfinance programs that turned poor people into entrepreneurs; asset-building strategies that helped poor people accumulate capital; and conditional cash transfers that focused on deploying monetary incentives to change behavior.” As a business major and psychology minor, I found these ideas to be very interesting. These market-based brands mixed aspects of business and psychology together to obtain a positive result.

Other points I found interesting was when Katz talked about Clinton’s presidency and Muhammad Yunus. Throughout my studies in American History before college, I have never heard of the Enterprise Zone or the Empowerment Act of 1998. Although it ultimately did not succeed, the Clinton administration did try hard to revitalize the inner-city. This act called for nine empowerment zones and ninety-five enterprise communities, both of which were allowed tax breaks and “other incentives” to help the poor. Clinton also added eligibility to social services and community-based programs. On the other hand, Yunus’ Grameen program proved successful. He was more inclined to help women because he felt that they were more likely to do good for their families compared to men. He also believed that that was the main reason for the program’s success. Although it may come off as a little unfair to men, I do agree with Yunus and his method of helping the poor.

Overall, I found this reading to be very informative and insightful. As a New Yorker exposed to a variety of entrepreneurial ideas, I certainly do see a great deal of talent and motivation coming from individuals who are less wealthy. But how exactly is the government dealing with poverty today? I do believe that our government is doing an adequate job (considering the economic circumstances) assisting the poor today. There are many social services including food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, etc. With that said, there is always room for more improvement.

“Underclass to Entrepreneur” Response

Leave a reply

In Katz’s “From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America,” the underclass is a group of people defined not by poverty but by characteristics like drugs, crime, teenage pregnancy and high unemployment. Over time, those qualities became synonymous and the poor became the underclass. I think that was inevitable because they overlap, so it makes sense, but it’s a little too general for my liking.

There was one particular description of the underclass that I found very interesting: the categorization of the poor. Ken Auletta organized poor people into groups that he labeled as the passive poor, the hostile, the hustlers, and the traumatized. I like this approach because it helps to differentiate the people who are making the best and the worst of the same situation. Naturally, we see the bad things and then assume that everyone in that predicament is doing them. Not every poor person is a criminal, but many people, including myself sometimes, perceive them all that way. This categorization can change that. Although it might be true to a certain extent, it is still unfair to say that every poor person is a dropout or an addict. If that can be eliminated, then a lot of issues regarding stereotypes can too.

Something that comes up is that the concept of the underclass supports the practice of blaming the victim. I believe this happens a lot to those involved with drugs, delinquency, and pregnancy out of wedlock. This isn’t to say that it is never their fault, but it seems that people ignore the possibility of external factors. For example, a drug addict may not have chosen to become one of his or her own free will. However, all we see is a poor life choice. Nobody considers what could have driven that person to that point and whether or not it had anything to do with him or her at all. Instead, we cast these people aside as the underclass. With this logic, people in that type of situation may never be able to find a way out.

The example that Katz makes of Muhammad Yunus, who distributed money on the idea that the poor are inherently entrepreneurial, brought a few questions to my mind. How true is that statement? We hear stories all the time of people who came from nothing and now have everything, but how often does that actually happen? If the poor really are such fervent entrepreneurs, how successful are they? Clearly there is some truth to this statement, or else Katz would not have written this chapter, but I wonder if it still holds true today. All we’ve been hearing about in the news lately is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Maybe it was the time period and the need to oppose racism that encouraged them back then, but I’m not so sure that poor people nowadays have that ambition or opportunity.

Even so, the micro-finance method sounds effective. I don’t expect everyone to climb to the top with this bit of help, because that’s just impossible, but it’s better than nothing. At the very least, it supports saving, which can eventually assist the elimination of the underclass. The question is not if they should be saving but how the government can help them save. I think people are definitely capable of that, and they should absolutely be aided in doing so. Sadly, in today’s economy, I can’t say that the government is doing such a great job of that.

From Underclass to Entrepreneur – Katz

Leave a reply

From Katz’s piece, it sees as though the term “underclass” went through a metamorphosis of meanings. From the 1970s to the 21st century, it found associations with everything from negativity and pity to spirited hope amidst adverse conditions.

To begin, I found that a key part of defining or even mentioning the underclass in academia, newspapers, and other media stemmed from the allocation of funds through public policy.  Where public money is spent, there follows harsh criticism and a need for evaluation. It is almost as though an entire social science category was born out of the need to explain the question of poverty in regards to culture, environment, and the distribution of money (welfare). The result of integrating research and public policy is the polarization of perceptions because even amidst objective research, results are skewed by private agendas (whether conservative or liberal) to advocate a cause. The direct result of such polarization is likely the reason our “underclass” in the 21st century carries a different meaning than the “underclass” forty years ago.

In the 1970s, the underclass was typically viewed as undeserving poor whose circumstance was a function of their own behavior. Researchers attempted to explain that social isolation, or lack of supervision and role models, bred a culture of poverty. In addition, the most common image of poverty was of an African American woman raising her children through the support of welfare. As much as anthropologist tried to remove the image and supplant it with an objective framework to judge the cause of poverty, private agendas continued to anchor perceptions. A prime example is the work of Oscar Lewis, who discussed the “culture of poverty” in hopes of stirring activists for his cause. He achieved no such feat and the term became a speaking point that advocated punitive public policy. Yet, we now live in a culture where the underclass is labeled as undeserving poor, but rather, as those lacking the right opportunity to escape their circumstance.

To continue, the emergence of new springboard projects that give those in poverty a means of overcoming is the product of a changing perception. Whether the tool is microfinance or government supported initiatives, people in adverse economic situations have proven their capacity to progress. With this in mind, true characterization of the poor can only be attributed after opportunity is granted. Hence, it is imperative that programs be in place because it is then that behavior truly becomes responsible for a person’s economic circumstance.

Katz- Response

Leave a reply

In Katz’s reading, what caught my attention was the categorization of the poor. Katz wrote how Ken Auletta wrote an article about four types of poor: passive, hostile, hustler, and traumatized. Each category of the poor seems to degrade them in general. However, Auletta does not focus on those who are poor because they are immigrants, do not have much education in America, but are still working hard to move upward. Auletta, in my opinion seems to criticize all the poor in general, and saying how lazy, violent, unlawful, and useless they are. But there are many people who are poor that do not deserve that kind of harsh criticism.

What was interesting was the New York City’s Charity Organization Society, which wanted to deal with the issue of poverty. It said poverty must be drained and purified rather than “walling it about.” However, I am not quite sure what this means, though I do agree poverty should be dealt with. I believe there is no way to completely wipe out poverty, but it can be diminished and the negative affects that come with it can be lessened as well. In Peopling of New York City, my class kept mentioning the importance of education, which I also agree is the foundation and support which without can lead to poverty.

Katz finally mentions two categories of poor: undeserving and deserving. What I still do not understand is why are the widows under deserving poor? They do try their best to keep work and raise children. The only Katz mentions is that they failed to save money for possible situations of losing a spouse (“episode of dependence”). If that is true, but the widows are still trying to find a job to have an income and try to raise a family simultaneously, I do not think the widows are deserving of poverty. To me, deserving poor are the ones who choose to not get an education, choose to get involved in drugs and illegal activities, and those who do not work hard.

To continue on about importance of education, Katz even mentions how the War of Poverty targeted schooling rather than helping people in the labor market. This reminds me of the quote “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” If you help provide cheap yet helpful education to people, they can learn and develop skills that can help them in the labor market. Instead of finding them one job, education and skills can help people get multiple of jobs. In addition, this method helps people to not be so dependent on the government. People still have to work hard in school to get where they want to go in life.

With that in mind, I do not think the government today is helping in that way. Tuition rates constantly rise, with no additional benefits. Adding on to that, it is more and more difficult to get a job when one graduates from college, and thus it makes sense that there was and is the constant dilemma of the large economic class gap. More people are falling into the middle and lower class, and some still in the poverty level because of family circumstances, than moving upward. Action truly must be taken by the government to fix this situation, or I believe poverty might worsen.

“Underclass to Entrepreneur” Response

Leave a reply

In “From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America,” Katz talks about the transformation of the term “underclass.” It started out as a derogatory term used towards black people dominating the crumbling core of the nation’s inner cities. It eventually grew as being the culture of the poor. However, I find it interesting that Katz is celebrating the entrepreneurial energy and talent within poor people who were waiting for the chance to improve their lives. This transformation resulted from the increase in support and aid given to the poor. This help gave them the ability to focus on making something out of themselves rather than remain in poverty.

The example of Muhammad Yunus and his support for people in poverty is a perfect way of helping them climb out of their unfortunate circumstance. I also agree with the rejection the belief that the underclass hurt the safety, health, and prosperity of America’s inner cities. Instead, I think that these effects are brought about by a lack of effort to help the people in poverty, which sometimes causes them to use alternative methods in making a living.

I think that many of the issues that defined the underclass at the time are still persistant today. For example, prominent drugs, crime, teenage pregnancy, and high unemployment, not necessarily poverty, defined the underclass. The people who are thought of as being underclass are also very similar. They are usually young and minorities. All of these qualities of the urban underclass would make anyone to think that they would make up the highly disproportionate number of the nation’s juvenile delinquents, school dropouts, drug addicts and welfare mothers, and much of the adult crime, family disruption, urban decay, and demand for social expenditures.

The programs set in place for the underclass played a large role in why it took so long for them to rise from poverty. The poorhouses that were put in place to despise and neglect the underclass. Even the public schools that were created to educate the children of the urban underclass were not effective. They were less effective than the the smaller schools of the past were. I feel like the struggles that these people faced were a big reason why the current underclass is so willing to work hard to get out of poverty.

I think that the idea of micro-finance is very good since it recognizes the importance of saving to poor people. According to me, the U.S. government tries to help build individual assets, but it is not as effective as it probably can be. It helps the people who already in the upperclass increase their wealth, such as paying interest on mortgages being tax deductible and since the upperclassmen tend to have higher mortgages, they benefit from such a program. I think that there should be more programs that direct their help specifically to the people who are in poverty and are trying to better their living conditions.

Neighborhood Effects in a Changing ‘Hood

Leave a reply

In this piece, the author is writing about a side of gentrification I never
considered. Usually, gentrification has been taught to be the reigning force for
the minority. While it might be beneficial to the neighborhood from an outsider
and policy maker’s point of view, how the neighbors might feel when new people
start coming in is a topic left relatively unexplored. Very little literature
has touched the subject. The piece brings in a point of view I have not seen but
it makes sense when it is explained.

Wilson’s view of gentrification has been taught to me in another IDC class. The
idea that having the middle class come in increases social ties makes a lot of
sense intuitively. The author interviewed a resident and talked about the
interactions between the long term residents and the gentrifiers. In his
interview, the resident said they don’t interact with one another much. While
the community might be benefit in terms of real estate, it seems community feel
decreases at the same time.

For the sake of a lively community, I wonder if gentrification is better even if
it destroys that feeling. Logically, the people that affect how you act the most
are the people who you hang out with. As I read what the author writes, the more
I feel the long term residents are the driving force behind neighborhood change
rather than new residents. For me, my neighborhood doesn’t have any events. My
nephew neighborhood used to have a block party and he and his neighborhoods
definitely seem closer to me.

I thought it was a bit funny when Jennifer, a black woman who obtained a
building used by the neighbor residents before, was called “white” out of
resentment by another black woman. As the author noted, I am sure the woman met
to use “white” to denote outsider status. Although her background isn’t typical
of a gentrifier, she can still be considered an outsider. The more I read the
interviews, the more I feel the ones making a difference in the neighborhoods
aren’t the gentrifiers and instead the old residents. The person who recently
turned Christian said how the one to stop little kids from selling drugs is to
have a job himself to offer.

However, I guess depending on the goals the gentry can help the residents or
hinder them. The piece definitely made me think about whether or not
gentrification is the best way to approach neighborhood change. Policy makers
should read this piece when thinking what is best for a neighborhood. I think
some statistics on who feels the gentry are outsiders would be good too.

Response to Freeman

Leave a reply

Freeman analysis of the gentrification of New York is a rather non-conventional outlook of an often demonized topic. Freeman also used an interest technique to develop and contexualize his ideas. Freeman treats gentrification as a metaphor for america’s once great frontier. Just as America’s frontier was once conquered by intrepid pioneers so too were the once desolate urban neighborhoods now undergoing gentrification. While I believe the metaphor served its purpose in describing gentrification and paralleling it with the history of American expansion, I am still at odds with Freeman’s assertion that features of gentrified neighborhoods actually encompassed elements of the old west.

Gentrification is still an ever-present phenomena and is still hotly debated today. The idea is relatively simply. The process occurs when individuals of means move into low-income neighborhoods. While generally the neighborhood sees many material improvements, often as a result these neighborhoods experience a rise rents or home values, which push less fortunate individuals out. The end result is a more prosperous neighborhood, yet with a very new and different culture and demographic.

In many ways neighborhoods that became gentrified were quite similar to the wild west or new frontier. These areas were relatively underdeveloped nor well understood. In addition, they share many of the same elements of danger such as high crime. Even less access to basic health resources pervade both areas. “The taming of the wild west” is a commonly used refrain by Freeman, which works well with how gentrified neighborhoods take on more docile persona. Just as the old west was once dominated by bandits and criminal though slowly materialized into orderly cities and communities, so to a gentrified neighborhood usually rids itself of its criminalized past.

I was in way kind of baffled by Freeman’s assertion that gentrified neighborhoods literally internalized elements of the old west. Freeman repeatedly points to locations, business establishments, and public places in gentrified neighborhoods which bare names which reference the old west. Additionally, he uses a source which identifies new residences of gentrified neighborhoods as “urban cowboys.” While this may make for an interesting point, I can see no scientific reason for these references, other than the fact that residences enjoy their appearances as pioneers. The argument seems to me rather a coincidence than an reliable fact concerning gentrified neighborhoods.

Overall, I enjoyed Freeman exploration of gentrified neighborhoods as a metaphor for the new frontier and the parallels it shares with the old west. Freeman made several intriguing points, and rather cleverly paints the metaphor well. Yet, I am still rather skeptical regarding the internal perception of gentrified neighborhoods as pioneers. In fact, I feel the label is rather disrespectful to the original residences of these areas.

Building the Frontier Myth/Neighborhood Effects in Changing Hood

Leave a reply

Although I do not have a strong opinion about gentrification, I believe that the success of gentrification depends heavily on the people of the neighborhood. Freeman mentions that to create mixed communities gentrification has the greatest potential. Most gentrification would be of middle class people moving to relatively poor neighborhoods. (126) By creating mixed communities, the neighborhood would rise in value and attraction, thus benefiting the lower-income families. In a review of literature, gentrification gives hope to “improving the housing stock, increasing the tax base,…improving quality of services.” (126) Although it is wonderful to improve a relatively poor neighborhood, it feels as though changing the neighborhood slowly forces previous lower-income residents to leave. If the lifestyle of the neighborhood increases in value, lower-income families would not be able to afford to continue living there.

Freeman mentions that gentrification would help with social ties, and thus would help the lower-income families move up in socially. With middle-income families moving into neighborhoods with lower-income families, the lower-income family would have a chance to obtain information that would help with jobs and other financial activity. However, there was not much change in mobility, because of limited access to resources. (146) Although some women were able to receive benefits through socializing, there was not much change that would benefit the families long-term. I do not think that social ties would do much for lower-income families, especially in our current period. From my experience living in several apartments, there is not much conversation with neighbors. So, in today’s time I do not think that social ties would be a benefit from gentrification.

Smith mentions many neighborhoods in New York City transformed through gentrification, which are now some of the most mainstream areas of Manhattan. He first mentions the Lower East Side and the account of a couple moving down to Ludlow street. This couple had never even heard of Ludlow street before moving in, indicating how infrequently they visited the Lower East Side. Presently, the Lower East Side is filled with many people and businesses. This illustrates how gentrification turned out successful in this neighborhood in increasing attraction.

In addition to the Lower East Side, Smith mentions SoHo that was gentrified in that 1960s and 1970s. In the past SoHo was an area filled with artists lofts and galleries. It also had many unique stores that demonstrated gentrification with the unique products it sold, such as Navajo rugs. Now, SoHo is a shopping destination with many retail stores lined up along Broadway. I find it hard to imagine SoHo gentrified, but do not find it hard to believe that it had been gentrified. With all the chain retail stores in the area, I find it believable that the neighborhood was gentrified.

From Smith’s article, I found out that two neighborhoods in New York City were gentrified. However, I feel that presently this gentrification has raised the costs of living in the area. In a way these two neighborhoods could be considered hubs, which would result in increasing cost of apartments in the area. Thus, this would provide more space for middle-income families and force lower-income families to move out.