By+Barbara+Ehrenreich

About 50 years ago， President Lyndon B. Johnson1 made a move that was unprecedented at the time and remains unmatched by succeeding administrations. He announced a War on Poverty， saying that its “chief weapons” would be “better schools， and better health， and better homes， and better training， and better job opportunities.”

So starting in 1964 and for almost a decade， the federal government poured at least some of its resources in the direction they should have been going all along： toward those who were most in need. Longstanding programs like Head Start， Legal Services， and the Job Corps were created. Medicaid was established. Poverty among seniors was significantly reduced by improvements in Social Security.2

Johnson seemed to have established the principle that it is the responsibility of government to intervene on behalf of the disadvantaged and deprived. But there was never enough money for the fight against poverty， and Johnson found himself increasingly distracted by another and deadlier war—the one in Vietnam3. Although underfunded， the War on Poverty still managed to provoke an intense backlash4 from conservative intellectuals and politicians.

In their view， government programs could do nothing to help the poor because poverty arises from the twisted psychology of the poor themselves. By the Reagan era， it had become a cornerstone of conservative ideology that poverty is caused not by low wages or a lack of jobs and education， but by the bad attitudes and faulty lifestyles of the poor.5

Picking up on this theory， pundits and politicians have bemoaned the character failings and bad habits of the poor for at least the past 50 years.6 In their view， the poor are shiftless， irresponsible， and prone to addiction.7 They have too many children and fail to get married. So if they suffer from grievous material deprivation， if they run out of money between paychecks， if they do not always have food on their tables—then they have no one to blame but themselves.

In the 1990s， with a bipartisan attack on welfare， this kind of prejudice against the poor took a drastically misogynistic turn.8 Poor single mothers were identified as a key link in what was called “the cycle of poverty9.” By staying at home and collecting welfare， they set a toxic example for their children， who—important policymakers came to believe—would be better off being cared for by paid child care workers or even， in orphanages.

Welfare “reform” was the answer， and it was intended not only to end financial support for imperiled families， but also to cure the self-induced“culture of poverty”that was supposedly at the root of their misery.10 The original welfare reform bill—a bill， it should be recalled， which was signed by President Bill Clinton—included an allocation of $100 million for “chastity training” for low-income women.11

The Great Recession12 should have put the victim-blaming theory of poverty to rest. In the space of only a few months， millions of people entered the ranks of the officially poor—not only laid-off blue-collar workers， but also downsized tech workers，13 managers， lawyers， and other once-comfortable professionals. No one could accuse these “nouveau14 poor”Americans of having made bad choices or bad lifestyle decisions. They were educated， hardworking， and ambitious， and now they were also poor—applying for food stamps15， showing up in shelters， lining up for entry-level jobs in retail. This would have been the moment for the pundits to finally admit the truth： Poverty is not a character failing or a lack of motivation. Poverty is a shortage of money.

For most women in poverty， in both good times and bad， the shortage of money arises largely from inadequate wages. When I worked on my book， Nickel and Dimed： On （Not） Getting by in America16， I took jobs as a waitress， nursing-home aide， hotel housekeeper， Wal-Mart associate， and a maid with a housecleaning service. I did not choose these jobs because they were low-paying. I chose them because these are the entry-level jobs most readily available to women.

What I discovered is that in many ways， these jobs are a trap： They pay so little that you cannot accumulate even a couple of hundred dollars to help you make the transition to a better-paying job. They often give you no control over your work schedule， making it impossible to arrange for child care or take a second job. And in many of these jobs， even young women soon begin to experience the physical deterioration17—especially knee and back problems—that can bring a painful end to their work life.

I was also dismayed to find that in some ways， it is actually more expensive to be poor than not poor. If you cant afford the first months rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment， you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. If you dont have a kitchen or even a refrigerator and microwave， you will find yourself falling back on convenience store food， which—in addition to its nutritional deficits—is also alarmingly overpriced. If you need a loan， as most poor people eventually do， you will end up paying an interest rate many times more than what a more affluent borrower would be charged. To be poor—especially with children to support and care for—is a perpetual high-wire act.18

Most private-sector employers offer no sick days， and many will fire a person who misses a day of work， even to stay home with a sick child.A nonfunctioning car can also mean lost pay and sudden expenses. A broken headlight invites a ticket， plus a fine greater than the cost of a new headlight， and possible court costs.19 If a creditor decides to get nasty， a court summons may be issued， often leading to an arrest warrant. No amount of training in financial literacy can prepare someone for such exigencies20—or make up for an income that is impossibly low to start with. Instead of treating low-wage mothers as the struggling heroines they are， our political culture still tends to view them as miscreants21 and contributors to the“cycle of poverty.”

If anything， the criminalization of poverty has accelerated since the recession， with growing numbers of states drug testing applicants for temporary assistance， imposing steep fines for school truancy，22 and imprisoning people for debt. Such measures constitute a cruel inversion of the Johnson-era principle that it is the responsibility of government to extend a helping hand to the poor.23 Sadly， this has become the means by which the wealthiest country in the world manages to remain complacent24 in the face of alarmingly high levels of poverty： by continuing to blame poverty not on the economy or inadequate social supports， but on the poor themselves.

Its time to revive the notion of a collective national responsibility to the poorest among us， who are disproportionately25 women and especially women of color. Until that happens， we need to wake up to the fact that the underpaid women who clean our homes and offices， prepare and serve our meals， and care for our elderly—earning wages that do not provide enough to live on—are the true philanthropists of our society.

約50年前，林登·B. 約翰遜總統(tǒng)向貧窮宣戰(zhàn)，這一舉措在當(dāng)時可謂是空前絕后，即便是繼他之后的美國政府也無法與之匹敵。他說，“最有力的武器”將是“更好的學(xué)校、更好的健康、更好的家園、更好的培訓(xùn)和更好的就業(yè)機會?！?/p>

因此，自1964年起之后的近十年時間里，聯(lián)邦政府在這一方面——為最需要幫助的人們——至少投入了部分物力和財力。他們早該這么做了。啟蒙計劃、法律服務(wù)計劃和就業(yè)工作團等政府項目應(yīng)運而生，并一直延續(xù)至今。醫(yī)療補助計劃正式確立。社會安全保險的改進也大幅減少了老年人中的貧困人口。

政府有責(zé)任代表弱勢和貧困群體進行干預(yù)——這一原則似乎在約翰遜時代就得到了確立。但是，我們從來沒有足夠的資金對抗貧窮，而且約翰遜發(fā)現(xiàn)自己正日益為另外一場更致命的戰(zhàn)爭——那場在越南的戰(zhàn)爭——所牽制。盡管資金支持不足，“對貧困宣戰(zhàn)”仍然遭到保守知識分子和政治家的強烈抵制。

他們認為，這些政府項目對窮人沒有任何幫助，因為貧窮的根源在于窮人自身的扭曲心理——貧窮不是工資低或缺乏工作機會和教育所造成的，其罪魁禍?zhǔn)资歉F人惡劣的心態(tài)和不良的生活方式。到里根任期時，這一觀念已成為保守意識形態(tài)的基石。

抱著這種觀念，權(quán)威人士和政治家們至少在過去的50年來一直對窮人的性格缺陷和壞習(xí)慣心存不滿。在這些人眼里，窮人是懶惰、不負責(zé)任的，而且容易染上癮癖。窮人不結(jié)婚，還兒女一大堆。那么，如果他們不得不忍受嚴重的物質(zhì)匱乏，如果他們在領(lǐng)取薪水之前就花光了身上的錢，如果他們不能保證餐桌上總能有吃的，這怨不了別人，只能怪他們自己。

20世紀90年代，隨著兩黨聯(lián)手共同批判社會福利制度，上述對窮人的偏見突然轉(zhuǎn)向，將攻擊的矛頭直指女性。貧窮的單身母親被視為所謂“貧窮怪圈”現(xiàn)象中的關(guān)鍵一環(huán)。她們待在家里不工作，靠領(lǐng)取社會救濟金糊口度日，給孩子樹立的是“有害的榜樣”。有影響力的政策制定者們漸漸相信，與其讓孩子生活在這樣的環(huán)境中，還不如把孩子送給收費的專業(yè)育兒員照管，甚至是送去孤兒院。

福利制度“改革”是解決之道，旨在終結(jié)對貧困家庭的經(jīng)濟支持，以及治愈窮人們自己孕育出來的“貧窮文化”—— 據(jù)說這是他們苦難的根源。讓我們回憶一下最初的福利制度改革法案，應(yīng)該是由比爾·克林頓總統(tǒng)簽署的一部法案，包括了一項一億美元的財政撥款，用于為低收入婦女提供“貞操培訓(xùn)”。

經(jīng)濟大衰退過后，人們理應(yīng)拋棄這種將過錯歸咎于受害者的貧困理論。區(qū)區(qū)幾個月內(nèi)，就有數(shù)以百萬計的人跨越了官方制定的貧困線。其中不僅有下崗的藍領(lǐng)工人，還有被裁掉的技術(shù)人員、管理人員、律師及其他領(lǐng)域的從業(yè)人員，他們原來都享受著舒適的生活。沒有人可以指責(zé)這些“新窮一族”作出了糟糕的決定或選擇了不健康的生活方式。他們受過教育、勤勤懇懇、胸懷大志，然而他們現(xiàn)在也成了窮人——申請食品券，出入臨時收容所，排隊爭搶零售業(yè)最低端的工作。這應(yīng)該是專家們不得不承認事實的時刻：貧窮不是一個人性格上的缺陷，也不是缺乏動力；貧窮就是缺錢。

對于大多數(shù)貧困婦女而言，無論在經(jīng)濟繁榮還是蕭條時期，缺錢主要是工資過低造成的。我在撰寫《五分一毛：聚焦美國福利改革之弊》時，曾從事過好多工作：服務(wù)員、養(yǎng)老院看護、酒店服務(wù)員、沃爾瑪超市柜員和家政女傭。我選擇這些工作并不是因為它們是低收入工作，而是因為它們是女性最容易得到的低端工作。

我發(fā)現(xiàn)，在許多方面，這些工作就是一種陷阱：它們提供的收入如此微薄，你甚至沒法攢下個幾百美元，以幫助自己過渡到薪酬更好的工作。從事這種工作，你常常不能自由安排工作時間，因此你無法照顧孩子，也沒法去找第二職業(yè)。在其中的許多崗位上，即使是年輕女性也會很快開始感受到體能的衰退——尤其是膝蓋和背部的毛病——可能會給她們的職業(yè)生涯畫上一個痛苦的句號。

我也驚愕地發(fā)現(xiàn)，從某些方面而言，做個窮人實際上要付出更為昂貴的代價。如果付不起租一間公寓所需的首月房租和押金，你就可能會被困在極不經(jīng)濟的住宅式汽車旅館。如果你沒有廚房，甚至連冰箱和微波爐都沒有，那么你將不得不依賴便利店食品過活——這種食物不但缺乏人體必需的營養(yǎng)，定價還驚人地高。如果你需要貸款，就像大多數(shù)窮人最終都不得不求助于貸款一樣，你承受的貸款利息到頭來比富人還要高出好多倍。貧窮——尤其是有孩子需要撫養(yǎng)和照顧時——永遠是一件極有風(fēng)險的事。

大多數(shù)私企不允許請病假。在許多私企中，員工若是一天不上班，就會失去工作，即使是在家里照顧生病的孩子也不行。車壞了，也意味著扣工資和意外的花銷。車燈壞了，會招來違規(guī)罰單，罰款額比換新車燈的費用還要高，另外還可能會產(chǎn)生庭審費。如果一個債權(quán)人拒不合作，很可能會收到法院傳票，乃至逮捕令。再多的金融常識也無法讓人具備應(yīng)付如此突發(fā)情況的能力，或填補本來就低得可憐的收入。我們的政治文化沒有將低收入的母親視為忍辱負重的女英雄，反而仍然傾向于將她們歸為罪大惡極之人和促成“貧窮怪圈”現(xiàn)象之人。

因貧窮而導(dǎo)致的刑事犯罪數(shù)量，如果要說的話，自經(jīng)濟衰退以來便加速上升：要求臨時資助金申請者進行藥檢的州越來越多；孩子逃學(xué)，要被處以巨額罰款；拖欠債務(wù)，就要被關(guān)進監(jiān)獄。這些舉措與約翰遜時代的做法背道而馳，無情地顛覆了“政府有責(zé)任向窮人伸出援助之手”的原則。令人遺憾的是，面對高得驚人的貧困率，世界上最富有的國家仍保持著一副滿不在乎的樣子，而這正好可以用作擋箭牌：繼續(xù)把貧窮歸咎于窮人本身，而非經(jīng)濟大環(huán)境或無力的社會支持。

現(xiàn)在是時候重拾國家對赤貧者負有集體責(zé)任的理念了，他們當(dāng)中女性多得離譜，尤其是有色人種女性。在此之前，我們需要意識到這樣一個事實：那些打掃我們的家和辦公室、為我們做飯、服侍我們進餐、照顧老人的低收入女性——她們賺的錢不足以維持生計——她們，才是真正的社會慈善家。

1. Lyndon B. Johnson： 林登·B. 約翰遜（1908—1973），第36任美國總統(tǒng)，人們普遍認為他在任期內(nèi)的主要功績是通過了老年保健醫(yī)療制度、醫(yī)療補助制度、民權(quán)法和選舉權(quán)法。

2. 該段中提到的幾項政府舉措依次為：1）Head Start： 啟蒙計劃，指美國聯(lián)邦政府為0—5歲的低收入家庭的兒童以及他們的家庭提供綜合性的教育、醫(yī)療、營養(yǎng)服務(wù)；2）Legal Services： 法律服務(wù)計劃，由美國聯(lián)邦政府資助地區(qū)法律服務(wù)中心，對當(dāng)?shù)刎毨У貐^(qū)的公民事務(wù)提供免費的法律咨詢服務(wù)；3）Job Corps： 就業(yè)工作團，為16—21歲的貧困青年提供宿舍，舉辦職業(yè)訓(xùn)練，幫助弱勢青年培養(yǎng)自力更生的能力；4）Medicaid： 醫(yī)療補助計劃，其對象主要為未成年人、低收入孕婦、低收入老人和殘疾人；5）Social Security： 美國社會安全保險，指美國聯(lián)邦政府在全國范圍內(nèi)對老年人、滿足條件的美國居民遺屬和部分殘疾人士提供財政資金支持。

3. 此處指越南戰(zhàn)爭（Vietnam War， 1955—1975），發(fā)生在冷戰(zhàn)時期，為美國等支持的南越對抗蘇聯(lián)等支持的北越和越共的一場戰(zhàn)爭，最終美國在戰(zhàn)爭中遭受了嚴重損失。

4. backlash：（尤指對政治或社會事件的）強烈反應(yīng)，抵制。

5. Reagan： 羅納德·里根（Ronald Reagan， 1911—2004），第40任美國總統(tǒng)，也是著名的演說家；ideology：（政治或經(jīng)濟上的）思想體系，意識形態(tài)。

6. pick up on： 把……作為己有；pundit： 權(quán)威，專家；bemoan： 抱怨，表示不滿。

7. shiftless： 懶惰的，不求上進的；prone to： 易于發(fā)生某事（尤指不好或有害的事）。

8. bipartisan： 由兩黨組成的，代表兩黨的（尤指觀點對立的兩黨）；welfare：（政府向窮人或失業(yè)者發(fā)放的）救濟金；misogynistic： 憎恨女人的，厭惡女人的。

9. the cycle of poverty： 貧窮怪圈，又稱世襲貧窮、跨代貧窮，指貧窮在某個固定人群或階層中的延續(xù)和傳遞，這一惡性循環(huán)若沒有外力干預(yù)極難打破。

10. imperiled： 處于危險中的；selfinduced： 由自己導(dǎo)致的；the culture of poverty： 貧窮文化，由“世襲貧窮”衍生出來的術(shù)語，指由于長期處于物質(zhì)貧乏狀態(tài)而產(chǎn)生的一種次級文化，這種文化具有特殊的價值觀與生活方式，經(jīng)過世代傳遞影響貧窮者的態(tài)度與行為。

11. welfare reform bill： 此處指美國總統(tǒng)比爾·克林頓在1996年簽署的《個人責(zé)任與就業(yè)機會協(xié)調(diào)法》，該法案試圖通過強制福利求助對象參與就業(yè)來解決貧困問題；allocation： 劃撥的款項（或經(jīng)費）；chastity： 貞潔，節(jié)操。

12. The Great Recession： 經(jīng)濟大衰退，不要與20世紀30年代的“經(jīng)濟大蕭條”（The Great Depression）混淆。大衰退是在2007年末開始的一場由金融危機所引發(fā)的經(jīng)濟衰退。國際貨幣基金組織認為，就總體影響而言，這是二戰(zhàn)以來最嚴重的全球性經(jīng)濟衰退。

13. laid-off： 被解雇了的，下崗的；downsized： 被裁員的。

14. nouveau： 新近產(chǎn)生的。

15. food stamp：（政府發(fā)給失業(yè)者或貧民的）糧票，食品券。

16. Nickel and Dimed： On （Not） Getting by in America： 《五分一毛：聚焦美國福利改革之弊》。作者芭芭拉·埃倫賴克隱瞞自己作家和生物學(xué)博士的身份，化身成離婚無子女的中年家庭主婦，體驗底層貧困人民的生活。

17. deterioration： 退化，惡化。

18. perpetual： 永恒的，永久的； high-wire act：（因風(fēng)險很大）須慢慢（或謹慎）對付的事。

19. ticket： 罰單；fine： 罰款；court cost：庭審費，指為法庭訴訟庭審所支出的費用，包括法院收費、法律費用、雜項開支及酬金等。

20. exigency： 應(yīng)急措施，應(yīng)急情況。

21. miscreant： 壞蛋，無賴。

22. criminalization： 刑事定罪，宣告（某人）犯法；impose： 強制實行；steep：（價格、收費等）過高的，過分昂貴的；truancy： 逃學(xué)，曠課。

23. constitute： 實際上等于，相當(dāng)于；inversion： 逆轉(zhuǎn)，顛倒；extend： 提供，給予。

24. complacent： 漠不關(guān)心的。

25. disproportionately： 不成比例地。