The Levy Report Interview

William Julius Wilson Discusses Joblessness in the Inner City, Federal Programs, and a National Urban Policy

William Julius Wilson, Lucy Flower University

Professor of Sociology and Public Policy at the

University of Chicago and member of the Levy

Institute Board of Advisors

The continued deterioration of the inner city is one of the nation's most complex and disquieting economic, social, and political problems. In his 1987 seminal work, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, William Julius Wilson, Lucy Flower University Professor of Sociology and Public Policy and director of the Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University of Chicago, argued that the roots of the problems of the underclass are primarily economic, but the problems are made worse by the concentration effects of ghetto isolation. Today his explanation for the plight of the inner city, based on empirical findings, integrates cultural, racial, economic, and other variables. Wilson has advised President Clinton and has been meeting with leaders from foundations, corporations, labor unions, and community groups to chart an ambitious course for an urban policy. He is a member of the Levy Institute Board of Advisors. Wilson discussed his, federal antipoverty programs, and his recommendations for a national-urban policy with Research Associate T'heresa Ford on December 11, 1995. A number of the ideas expressed in this interview are based on his book When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor, to be published by Alfred A. Knopf in August 1996.

Ford: What accounts for the rise in the proportion of jobless adults in inner-city communities?

Wilson: There are a number of factors; no simple analysis can explain this significant social change. The most important factor is that people in inner-city neighborhoods have been especially adversely affected by the decline of the mass production system that has accompanied changes in the world economy. In previous years inner-city black workers could depend on finding jobs in the manufacturing sector; they could find blue-collar jobs in the goods-producing industries. These jobs provided mobility for a lot of innercity black residents, as reflected in the increase in the working-class and middle-class black population. However, these industries have declined over the years because of the decline of the mass production system. Our research in Chicago reveals that there has been a significant decrease in the proportion of blacks employed in the manufacturing industry since 1970.

As the blacks have lost jobs in manufacturing as a result of the significant decline in the number of manufacturing jobs in cities like Chicago, they either have had to find employment in the low-paying service sector or have simply gone jobless. What has happened over the years is that inner-city blacks, especially black males and to some extent black females, have had to compete with white women and immigrants for jobs in the low-paying service sector. The blacks have not fared too well. Employers would rather hire white women or immigrants than inner-city blacks.

Ford: Why would employers rather hire white women or immigrants than inner-city blacks?

Wilson: Again, there are a number of reasons. One is the simple fact of racial prejudice on the part of some

employers, but I don't want to overemphasize that point because black and white employers have similar views regarding inner-city workers. Many black and white employers perceive the environment that inner-city black workers come from as being less than conducive to employment. There's a general feeling that inner-city blacks grow up in neighborhoods and attend schools that do not prepare them well for the work world. This perception leads many employers to practice what economists call statistical discrimination. Even if an inner-city black worker is hardworking, ambitious, and cooperative, he or she may be denied an opportunity if he or she comes from a neighborhood that an employer believes does not prepare people for work.

I hasten to point out that recent political changes have reinforced the economic marginality of the ghettos. For example, the new federalism of the Reagan/Bush administrations exacerbated a lot of the problems of the inner city. Cities today do not have the resources to deal with the social dislocations in the inner city. As the social environment in the inner city deteriorates, the social resources needed to promote the kinds of skills and habits that are conducive to working become even more scarce.

Ford: Some argue that a disproportionate share of low-wage and low-skilled minorities are most vulnerable and most injured by current trends in immigration. Should immigration reform accompany a comprehensive urban policy?

Wilson: We need to pay much closer attention to the effect of immigration on the employment experiences of lowskilled workers. The research is mixed on this. Early research suggested that immigration had no impact, but more recent studies suggest that immigration has affected the income of low-skilled workers. Some research suggests that in certain cities immigrants have affected the employment rate of inner-city black workers. We should ask the Federal Commission on Immigration Reform to review the research more carefully and come up with some recommendations as to what our immigration policy should be. There have been attempts to look at the impact of immigration, but we need to review the situation thoroughly and come up with an informed judgment based on the empirical research. This problem cannot be ignored.

Ford: Some people argue that any work, even low-wage work, eventually leads to a more financially rewarding work experience. Do you agree?

Wilson: It would be difficult to argue that low-wage work leads to a more financially rewarding experience. When people who are on welfare go off welfare and accept low paying, minimum-wage jobs that have no health or other standard fringe benefits, they actually fall deeper into poverty. Many welfare mothers in Chicago who are trying to get off welfare take one of these low-paying jobs, the only ones that they are really qualified for, given their level of training and education. After paying for child care, transportation, clothing, and other costs associated with work, they have considerably less money to spend than when they were on welfare. Many of them lose their subsidized housing and their medical cards and they end up being worse off. As one woman put it, "I hate being on welfare, but what am I going to do when my kids get sick if I lose my medical card?"

I don't think low-wage work is financially rewarding at all. The advantage of working is that work regulates the worker's life; it instills or promotes discipline. The behavior of people who work is more predictable. Children growing up in a work environment are in a better position than kids who grow up in an environment where people are not working. The casual behavior associated with infrequent or no work does not create a healthy environment for children to grow up in.

It would be great if we could somehow "make work pay," as David Ellwood put it. People could take the jobs for which they qualify. If these jobs could be made more attractive by increasing the earned income tax credit [EITC] or providing health insurance and child care, the country would be much better off.

Ford: Congress has proposed a sharp reduction in the EITC. Opponents of the EITC claim there is too much fraud and abuse and that the EITC is a work disincentive for people at the program's upper-income limit. Should the program be cut back because of excessive costs due to fraud and abuse (and even IRS error) or because it is a work disincentive?

Wilson: The program should not be cut back. The EITC is a program that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats until very recently. We can work to eliminate or reduce some of the abuse. The problem of fraud has really been overplayed. What is important is to make sure that people are rewarded for working; we can do that at the same time

Ford: Would an expansion of the EITC, an increase in the minimum wage, or other subsidies for the working poor help the underclass?

Wilson: With an expansion of the EITC, a comprehensive health insurance plan to cover every worker, and some kind of child care support, you would be well on your way to helping the underclass. The minimum wage has not been increased significantly, for a long time, and low-income workers are making much less today than they did several decades ago. There should be some increase, but if these other programs were adopted, there would be no need to make a substantial increase in the minimum wage and thereby run the risk of increased unemployment.

Ford: After-tax incomes for families in 1996 are projected to be more than 10 times higher for those with incomes in the top 20 percent than for those in the bottom 20 percent. Why should Americans be concerned about this disparity in income?

Wilson: The gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country is widening so rapidly that we are close to creating two societies-two really separate and distinct societies-in many respects comparable to the situation in third world countries. It is not a healthy climate. There is a privileged class and a growing class of have-nots that is falling further and further behind. This situation breeds discontent and resentment that could lead to all kinds of problems: collective disturbances as well as individual aberrant behavior.

The growth in inequality is mind-boggling. It is not unique to the United States; it is occurring around the world, but in other industrial countries there are more comprehensive safety nets that keep the poor from plunging to the depths to which they have fallen in the United States. It is a real problem that could affect the future of our society. We are not paying attention to it. In fact, we are contributing to the growing income inequality with our tax policies. The next generation will not be able to avoid trying to deal with it.

Ford: Why are the problems faced by blacks in poor, segregated communities more severe in eastern and midwestern urban areas than in other urban areas across the country?

Wilson: The main reason is that these are the areas that have experienced the most significant deindustrialization. Blacks have borne the brunt of economic restructuring in these regions of the country. A history of discrimination and prejudice has forced blacks into occupations that have been especially vulnerable to changes in the industrial economy.

Ford: You have stated that there are cultural as well as economic factors in the new urban poverty, yet you insist you are not making a cultural argument. Can you reconcile these two points? And, why is culture such a "loaded term" in discussions about poverty?

The gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country is widening so rapidly that we are close to creating two societies- two really separate and distinct societies-4n many respects comparable to the situation in third world countries.

Wilson: When I say that I am not making a cultural argument, I mean that I am not making an exclusively cultural argument. An exclusively cultural argument does not take into consideration the impact of structural factors on human experiences. My thesis incorporates both culture and social structure. Arguments that focus on only one or the other miss key aspects of reality. When I say I am not presenting a cultural argument, I mean that I am not presenting an argument that ignores social structural factors.

In my new book, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor, I try to show the integration of structural and cultural factors. I try to show that over time people adjust to persistent joblessness due to declining employment opportunities, and in making these adjustments, they develop certain skills, styles, habits, and orientations that become cultural. Often these cultural responses reinforce their economic marginality. The lives of people who are working consistently are organized around work. They eat at a certain time; they get up at a certain time; their recreational life is fit into their work schedule. Their behavior becomes more predictable because of the discipline and regularity that work imposes.

The environment includes both structural and cultural factors. The structural factor is the persistent joblessness that people experience because of declining opportunities; the cultural factor is the behavior that is associated with persistent joblessness over time as reflected in habits, skills, styles, and orientations. If you are not knowledgeable about these factors, you cannot appreciate the devastating effects of the environment. You cannot fully understand the social outcomes in the inner-city environment if you ignore either the structural factors that produce persistent joblessness or the cultural factors that emerge from persistent joblessness.

Ford: Is joblessness a cause or a result of ghetto-specific behavior?

Wilson: I would argue that joblessness, over time, has contributed to ghetto-related styles of behavior, that is, people respond to joblessness in ways that make their behavior somewhat different from that of people outside ghetto neighborhoods. Once this behavior emerges, it sometimes reinforces the joblessness. Children who grow up in an environment of persistent joblessness, in which the parents and the other people in the neighborhood are not working, are not automatically exposed to the habits, styles, and skills that are associated with steady employment. When these children enter the labor market and compete with people who grew up in environments that are organized around work, they are at a disadvantage because they have not developed the habits, styles, and skills associated with steady work. Therefore, the cultural factors that grow out of persistent joblessness reinforce the marginality, making people who grow up in that environment less attractive to employers.

Ford: Conservatives claim that federal programs have increased rather than reduced poverty over the years. How would you respond to these claims?

Wilson: There is no empirical research that would support the conservative argument that these programs increase poverty. Without the federal programs the problems of poverty would be even worse than they are. However, although the programs have prevented people from sliding deeper into poverty, they have not eliminated poverty. They have had only a marginal effect on the poverty rate. Despite federal programs, there is still a growing proportionof people in what we call the poorest of the poor category (50 percent below the poverty line).

Ford: You have criticized government programs, such as federally financed freeways that divide urban communities, federally subsidized home ownership programs that benefit primarily suburbanites, and federally funded housing projects that isolate families by race and class, that have contributed to local fragmentation, racial segregation, and ghetto isolation.

Wilson: The federal government certainly has contributed to some of the problems that I have talked about over the years. The latest problem has been the new federalism. The lack of government support for basic urban programs that benefit the urban poor and no significant increase in the minimum wage over the years are other examples of how the federal government has aggravated the problems of the poor.

First, we should restore federal funding to cities to the level we had in 1980 so that cities are in a position to deal with some of the social and economic changes thatare occurring. Second, we must design an urban policy to encourage greater city-suburban consolidation and cooperation.

Ford: Can you talk about some of the changes in federal aid to cities since the 1980s and some of the emerging social conditions affecting cities since the 1980s?

Wilson: In 1980 the federal government contributed almost 20 percent to the total municipal budgets; it now contributes about 6 percent. Because of federal cutbacks, cities have not been able to do some of the things that make city living attractive. There have been sharp cuts in spending on general revenue sharing, urban mass transit, local public works, social service block grants, and urban development action grants. Garbage pickups have been delayed; libraries are not kept open; streets are not as clean as they were before; parks and playgrounds are often shut down and lack supervision; and crime is more rampant because of reduced police budgets. The homeless population has increased. The AIDS epidemic and its escalating health costs have created problems. These are all examples associated with declining revenue. Cities do not have the resources that they used to have to deal with these problems.

All these problems make cities less attractive places to live. Therefore, many more people leave when they have the opportunity. When people leave, they associate minorities with the ugly urban scene left behind. You have the growing divide between cities and suburbs. Race relations in the metropolitan areas have become worse.

The way in which we have let our cities deteriorate is scandalous. It is in sharp contrast to the way European nations deal with their cities. Those countries treat their cities as a national resource to he nurtured and protected by the government; there is much greater support for urban programs than there is in the United States. Our country should be very concerned about the growing divide between cities and suburbs. Cities need to be revitalized. People should be made aware that if central cities deteriorate, their suburbs will too.

Ford: What would you prescribe as the foundation of an effective urban policy for the nation?

Wilson: First, we should restore federal funding to cities to the level we had in 1980 so that cities are in a position to deal with some of the social and economic changes that are occurring. Second, we must design an urban policy to encourage greater city-suburban consolidation and cooperation. Cities and suburbs should be working in concert to deal with problems on a number of different levels, such as traffic congestion, attracting industries to areas, changes in the tax base, and cultural programs. Both should recognize that a healthy, thriving central city definitely benefits the suburbs. Therefore both should be working together to promote the health of a metropolitan area.

Ford: You have criticized federal welfare and antipoverty programs for emphasizing targeting and means testing, two practices that sharply differentiate these programs from mainstream, social programs. But the mainstream, universal programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, are under attack because they are not affordable. Can we afford any more universal programs?

Wilson: We can afford them. It all depends on what we are willing to support as a nation, what our political priorities are. When we want to support something, we do it. For example, we had no problems in supporting the $2 trillion military budget during the 1980s. Despite the deficit, we are willing to support certain kinds of programs. It is a matter of political priorities. I recognize that programs like Medicaid and Medicare are extremely expensive and that there should be some way to reduce costs without denying people basic medical services they need. But I also recognize that if we change our tax structure and reform our tax system, we could eliminate the deficit overnight, and there would be money for a number of social programs.

Ford: You have advocated race-neutral policies to alleviate inequality, but you have also noted that affirmative action helps during tight labor markets. Did affirmative action help create the black middle class, or did affirmative action help only the black middle class?

Wilson: Affirmative action certainly did contribute to the growth of the black middle class. That is one of the reasons I support affirmative action programs. I think we need more middle-class blacks; we need more blacks in professional positions. What I have pointed out, however, is that we need programs that are designed to alleviate the suffering of the poor, and affirmative action programs have not done that.

Affirmative action programs have benefited primarily the trained and educated blacks. That's good, But at the same time we also should be paying as much or even more attention to programs that would help poorer and less-advantaged blacks. Effective programs to aid them are likely to be race-neutral, such as training and education programs, child support and child care programs, and programs to reform public schools.

Ford: You have urged the need for strong political and moral leadership to help combat racial antagonisms and the need for a message that unites, rather than divides, racial groups. In the upcoming election year it appears likely that race will be a campaign issue. How can America's political leaders engage in an honest discussion about race without exploiting racial divisions, as has happened in past elections?

Wilson: One thing they can do, as I urged President Clinton to do, is to emphasize the things that unite racial groups rather than those that divide them. Leaders can talk about the experiences and problems that racial groups have in common, such as growing economic insecurity and concerns about health care and schools.

It has become a general view that blacks and whites have such different values, perceptions, and so on that they are

almost like two separate groups. That is not true. Although there may be significant differences in the way blacks and whites perceive issues of race, there are substantial agreements in other areas of life. Public opinion surveys reveal that blacks, whites, and other groups agree on quite a number of things about life in America and that they have many common values, aspirations, and hopes. I would like to see political leaders emphasizing those things so that people could see that blacks and whites should be working together to move America forward rather than working apart.



I would also encourage political leaders to make people aware that a lot of their problems are not due to the behavior or the efforts of certain racial groups, but are due to economic changes and political changes in the broader society. We often have a tendency to blame our increasing economic marginality on certain groups, such as welfare mothers and immigrants, without recognizing that economic and political changes are adversely affecting different segments of the population. Demagogues frequently deflect attention from the real source of our problems, and we end up blaming one another or turning on one another, race against race. It would be great if our political leaders could get people to recognize that the issues are far more complex than the demagogic messages suggest. We should be trying to work together to deal with the broader economic and political issues that adversely affect Americans in all walks of life today.

Source: "Report", vol. 6, no. 1, The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, February 1996.

~ $ ~