In constructing a model that
identifies the inputs, outcomes and outputs of joblessness according to author
William Julius Wilson, a Harvard sociologist, the key acknowledgment that he
stresses is the understanding that “ghetto” culture and racism are only minor
factors in urban poverty despite popular belief. This analysis will discuss how
the New Federalism that has occurred since 1980 serves as one of the key
inputs, that has caused the output of insufficient institutional reaction to
the problem of social dislocation that has created jobless neighborhoods, and
according to Wilson must be combated with the output of programs which are
modeled after those which were prevalent during the Great Depression that seek
to address any and everyone who is in need of a job instead of those solely
contingent upon skill or qualifications.
According to Wilson, since 1980 the
New Federalism has insisted there be a more localized response to social
problems, which was manifested through drastic cuts in spending on basic urban
problems at a time when the exact opposite was most needed. Essentially, as the
targeted start of “white-flight” was occurring, and the former primary
enticement of commerce and social organization was fleeing to the suburbs, the
federal government was also abandoning the inner-city which created a complete
abandonment of resources that were necessary to sustain social order and typical
community life.
Additionally, Wilson asserts that the
inevitable outcome of such a set of circumstances was destined to be the recipe
for joblessness in the inner-city. Specifically, most communities must have a
thriving economic source to ensure that greatly needed social institutions that
deal with the issues of joblessness, poverty, crime and other influential
factors. Before the New Federalism of the 1980’s, when extenuating
circumstances occurred (i.e. a major job provider such as a factory or mill
closing down) the funding that was provided by the federal government assisted
in financing the various social organizations within the community that
assisted individuals with locating alternative employment options. However,
when the federal government transitioned to the New Federalism which forced
local communities to create such income revenues to support these kinds of
programs and social organizations, it all but guaranteed that the communities
who were rapidly approaching poverty were all but guaranteed to arrive at such
a place because of the lack of funding for greatly needed social institutions
and programs.
Subsequently, the output which
Wilson propagates will be the most effective in dealing with such an input is a
shift in the federal approach to joblessness in inner-cities. He utilizes the
approach which was most successful during the most desolate economic tenure in
United States history—the Great Depression. That approach consisted of public
policy that generated jobs that were committed to employing anyone who needed a
job, as opposed to the current job market which has a heightened focus on an
individual’s education and experience qualifications. By doing this, Wilson
argues that in areas where joblessness (which is the primary cause of poverty)
is rampant the opportunity for individuals to overcome that predicating factor
is neutralized, which in turn neutralizes the overall issue of poverty.
Finally, in attempting to gauge the
likelihood and plausibility of such an output, one must examine the
contemporary perspective concerning the role of the federal government.
Typically, the Republican perspective concerning federal intervention in issues
such as poverty, joblessness and the disinvested is a resistant or hesitant
one. Most Republicans feel that the federal government should engage in as
little social intervention on a localized level as possible, and because the
current administration and previous Congressional composition is/was
Republican, it’s hard to imagine that such legislation that would be necessary
to accomplish such a purpose could be conceived from such a government.
However, as has been witnessed by the unimagined or anticipated support that
Democratic candidate Barack Obama has received on the basis of a campaign
rooted in hope and the possibility for political change guarantees that there
must be a considerable segment of the country that is willing to consider the
possibility of a change to a more unified approach to overcoming poverty than
what currently exists. Thus, it’s just as possible for such legislation to
emerge in the upcoming years as is the chance of Obama being the captain of
such change.
