Debunking Myths about Poverty: A Response to Monte Solberg

In his article “Handouts too easy an option,” published a few weeks ago in the Ottawa Sun, Monte Solberg argues that government spending on social programs is an inefficient method of addressing poverty because government programs encourage low-income people to be lazy and unproductive. He instead advocates for the expansion of volunteer programs to help the low-income and marginalized, as he views them as more effective than public programs.

Solberg’s article demonstrates values and attitudes about poverty that are all too common in our society – and that lead to the very “band-aid” approaches to addressing poverty that Solberg claims governments have been using so ineffectively.

The stereotyping of low-income people as lazy and irresponsible perpetuates the misconception that, if people are poor, it is either through their own fault, or because they choose to be poor. These stereotypes lead to programs that address poverty by dividing low-income people into two categories.

The first category is for those who are poor as a result of circumstances beyond their control and are therefore “deserving” of assistance, such as those on disability support. The second category is for those who are poor because they are seen as simply too lazy to find themselves a job. This personal character flaw makes them “undeserving” of help from society and they are therefore encouraged to take “personal responsibility” for their situation and stigmatized if they do not.

But why would anyone choose to be poor? Solberg’s assumption concludes that people who are low-income have different motivations that the rest of society – they do not want a nice house, or nutritious food, or a chance to give their children more opportunities. His perspective does not take into account whether there are enough jobs available, or jobs that pay an adequate wage, or whether people have the requisite skills to be employed.

He also turns a blind eye to the fact that living on welfare or Employment Insurance is not “the good life” – it provides only minimal support and presents a constant struggle to make ends meet for those that rely upon it. Social programs that provide only minimal support actually help keep people under the poverty line by denying them the opportunity to develop new skills or transition into the workforce.

There are also many benefits that come from working besides monetary incentives. Work provides people with a sense of accomplishment, a place to utilize their skills and engage in social interaction, and an opportunity to receive a paycheque with dignity. The assumption that low-income people do not desire to work leads to misguided approaches to poverty reduction.

In his article, Solberg targets women in particular, claiming that social assistance programs encourage women to “sit at home, have babies and collect welfare.”

But if a single woman has a baby, is she irresponsible for being unable or unwilling to work because she is caring for her child? Women and children in Canada disproportionately suffer from poverty. Children growing up in poverty generally have lower rates of success in school, poorer nutrition, and are more likely to get into trouble with the law. Deciding that single mothers are “undeserving” of assistance not only stigmatizes them, it also perpetuates the cycle of poverty from one generation to the next.

Solberg also doesn’t take into account all of the other circumstances that can limit the ability of people to participate in the workforce: caring for ill or disabled family members; having a mental illness, a disability or an addiction; growing up in a low-income family or in a marginalized community where opportunities are few or simply a lack of jobs available.

Also not mentioned are the thousands of working poor – families with at least one parent employed full-time – who live in poverty because of the lack of a living minimum wage.

Reducing people to a set of categories, as Solberg does, ignores the complexities of each person’s life. Placing blame and judgment is not only a waste of energy; it is an inefficient approach to addressing poverty.

I agree with Solberg that it is important that social programs are effective. However, Solberg blindly assumes that government is inherently inefficient and therefore cannot be used to reduce poverty.

What is even more disturbing is that this view is coming from someone who, until recently, was the Minister for Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC) – the department responsible for federal social, housing and other programs that support low-income people. If Solberg holds so little faith in the efficiency of government, it is no wonder that he views public social programs as ineffective.

Solberg writes that “in big ways and small we all have a duty to help” address poverty. One of the “big” ways is through government programs. While volunteer programs to help the homeless and hungry are useful, they generally target the symptoms of poverty and not the underlying causes, such as systemic income inequality.

Government has a leadership role to play in reducing poverty through both legislation and by encouraging other sectors in society to do their part to improve income inequality, ensure a living wage, and fund social programs that can lift families out of poverty. All levels of government must commit to a long-term poverty reduction strategy. Until then, we will simply continue to treat the symptoms of poverty, and in doing so allow it to perpetuate.