Socioeconomic Status and Race

Socioeconomic status is confused with race all the time. A huge stereotype that exists in the U.S. is the belief that all minorities live in the city. It is true that the majority of the cities racial make-up is minorities; however, the majority of people who live in the city limits is of the lower socioeconomic ladder.

Why is that the case? Technology. In the 1950's, those U.S. citizens who were classified as the middle class were able to afford the automobile. Yes, the majority of those citizens where Caucasian. The "Great White Flight" occurred and many middle, upper middle, and high class U.S. citizens packed their station wagons and moved to the suburbs. As the minority fought for equal rights during the 1960s, many Caucasians who remained in the cities decided to move as well and more suburbs developed outside of the metropolis and megalopolises. Also, technology made it possible to live in areas of the U.S. that were unbearable prior to the 20th century. Places like Phoenix, Arizona, with scorching hot temperatures and the consistent access to water in the dessert a city sprawled out of no-where and with the decline of industry in the northern cities, more job opportunities opened up in the south, southwest, and California in the 1970s.

The economy and tax base left the cities and those with low socioeconomic statuses were stuck. By the 1980s, the "Rust Belt" phenomenon hit hard in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Flint, Buffalo, Erie, Pittsburgh, and etcetera. This was the heartland of industry and big business fled to cheaper labor costs and areas where unions could no influence decisions of equal treatment. More people had to apply for welfare and unemployment. The "majority of the minority" had just fought for equal treatment in the 1960s and 1970s and President Johnson developed welfare acts to help the populations that lived in urban settings. These assistant programs were the answer in the 1960s and 1970s but there was a new phenomena in the 1980s and some may argue that "Reaganomics" ignored "Main Street." But what about "Poor Way?"

Yes, "Poor Way," a buzzword that will never be used in context of economy. It does not make sense to some but when we think of poor people in the cities of America we think of Black and Latino faces. We think of crime and hard knock life. We do not think about people who are treated unequally and trapped.

The welfare programs of the 1970s-1990s did not help people get out of their hard times, it kept the people trapped. Some people blame the dependency on those on welfare...but the government will not help those on welfare find a job. "People are just being lazy..." Some people can not work a minimum wage job and live off the earnings. Then, laziness is traced back to race and the concept of the "porch monkeys," etc. I have heard it all. The welfare programs of the 1960s realized the need for such programs but they were not modified when the 1980s "Sun Belt" movement occurred and thousands of people were displaced because jobs left for cheaper labor.

The inner-city neighborhoods of some cities are hard knock. Some of these residents have more stress in their life and still not have enough to live comfortable. However, there are people of all races that live in these situations. Low socioeconomic status is a plague that has no preference of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. I walked into a welfare office in Erie, PA a few weeks ago and seen men, women, boys, girls, infants, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian people. Usually when you say welfare office, some people will immediately associate "Minorities" to that word. Many Americans are poor, and it is a shame with the wealth we have in this nation that we cannot have affordable health care and living for "Poor Way."

Nevertheless, when we think of low socioeconomic status, let's remember that it is not just a minority thing. This can and will effect many Americans if the economy issues are not resolved. Technology and globalization are a gift and a curse. The welfare program is still a 20th century plan in the 21st century (another buzzword or buzz-statement). Actually, a lot of legislation and other Federal assistance programs are 20th century in a new era. But let's not forget that we should not confuse socioeconomic status to race and ethnicity.

Mr. Lincoln

P.S: I will ponder about a plan that will help citizens in low socioeconomic statuses in the cities.