Those of us who are financially secure exploit the poor, driving down their wages while forcing them to overpay for housing and access to cash and credit. We prioritize the subsidization of our wealth over the alleviation of poverty, designing a welfare state that gives the most to those who need the least. And we stockpile opportunity in exclusive communities, creating zones of concentrated riches alongside those of concentrated despair. Some lives are made small so that others may grow.Put plainly: the upper middle classes are rich because the poor are poor.
Desmond conveys the absurdity of welfare bureaucracies that for paternalistic or political reasons spend more in order to provide less aid. In one story alone, child welfare services, foster care, behavioral health services, public housing, and social security disability income all at various points fail to provide service to a young woman sliding into homelessness. Desmond also correctly emphasizes the lasting damage of bad 20th-century policies such as New Deal-era redlining, and later the war on drugs, both catastrophic for urban, mostly poor and black communities.The argumentam ad anecdotum of that first paragraph ought be familiar to anyone who has read and understood Blaming the Victim. In that second paragraph is a hint at a missed opportunity for policy wonks, particularly of a libertarian stripe.
Frustratingly, Desmond ignores any specific lessons from the best part of his book. Its purpose is to evoke understandable outrage that such tragedies happen in our liberal and wealthy society. The remainder of Poverty, by America is stuck somewhere between a revolution and Elizabeth Warren’s 2020 campaign platform.
Desmond’s remedies for the workers he considers exploited are a higher minimum wage and a lot more unionization. Historical and economic arguments that such labor market interventions often harm the poorest workers, when acknowledged at all, are treated as admonishments from the establishment for everyone else to stay in their lane rather than an opportunity for ideas to be debated.In the first paragraph, again, more business as usual, contesting the policy field between the 35 yard lines. Couple the second and third paragraphs with the excerpt from the Poverty blurb, and you get a standard-issue deflection from the self-styled progressives, something along the lines of "you denounce the socialist urban policy mote in my eye and neglect that socialist Suburban Experiment beam in your eye."
Perhaps the book’s worst moment comes during Desmond’s discussion of the very real housing crisis faced by America’s poor. Earlier, when describing the impact of redlining, Desmond would have done well to also focus on mid-twentieth century policy of “urban renewal,” with bulldozed neighborhoods displaced by high-rise public housing. Such disastrous city planning completed the one-two punch redlining began, leaving poor neighborhoods starved of both financial and social capital, which together form the basis for especially urban economic dynamism.
Massive new investments in public housing are at the top of Desmond’s policy wishlist, and he would rather not dwell on what, in his own words, are the “violent and decrepit” results of very recent memory.
It's more accurate to describe that Suburban Experiment as rent-seeking run amok, promoted by General Electric and General Electric and made policy by General Eisenhower. Mr Gulker recognizes part of the argument.
Desmond’s policy proposals almost all double down on collaboration between big government, big business, and big labor–the “system” against which the American left first cut its teeth protesting. Doing so while speaking in the fashionable language of radicalism requires more than a little cognitive dissonance, from which he attempts to distract readers with a man-in-the-mirror pivot.Whether you call the Suburban Experiment rent-seeking run amok, or as socialism for the better off, as Professor Desmond does, in either case the Suburban Experiment has proven to be a fiscal sinkhole, and the better thing to do might be to stop throwing public money at it, and find a way forward for the strapped neighborhoods of the big cities and the inner suburbs that involves neither rent-seeking nor socialism.
In Desmond’s framework, we ourselves are “authors of inequality.” This perspective is not without some important insights. Americans, often given to hand-wringing over getting the incentives right for welfare, do no such thing with their own subsidized mortgages and tax breaks. We celebrate the end of legal discrimination without thinking too hard about the undeniable ongoing impacts of our own local zoning laws and neighborhood covenants.






