When President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty” in 1964, the nation lacked a proper method of measuring poverty or a clear definition of what poverty really meant. The administration had to quickly come up with a measure to track progress. They decided that the minimum income needed for a family of three or more to afford food multiplied by three would be the gauge (since food made up a third of the average family budget at the time). While income is an important indicator of well-being, it’s not the only one. Health outcomes and social mobility also play a significant role. That’s why it’s more meaningful to shift our focus from poverty to disadvantage. Disadvantage is a better term because it encompasses not just income, but the various circumstances that hinder a person’s life chances. Disadvantage implies an unfairness, as people are being held back unjustly.
Understanding disadvantage requires looking beyond the individual or family level. Research in social science has shown that a child’s life chances are heavily influenced by their environment, including their community, rather than solely their income or family circumstances. With this in mind, we created the Index of Deep Disadvantage that incorporates traditional income measures, health markers, and social mobility rates for children from low-income families. We used this index to rank counties and cities across the United States.
The rankings revealed an interesting geographical pattern. Contrary to expectations, the most disadvantaged places on our index were primarily rural, but they didn’t match the typical image of rural America. Many of them had majority Black or Hispanic populations, with large Native American communities also ranking among the most disadvantaged. Cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, while experiencing poverty, didn’t rank among the most disadvantaged when compared directly. The only cities on that list were industrial municipalities such as Cleveland, Detroit, and Rochester.
Some may argue that the high cost of living in many cities should be considered, but it’s a more complex issue. While housing may be more expensive in certain places, residents often benefit from better healthcare systems, a more robust safety net, public transportation, and higher-quality schools. Those living in the most disadvantaged places on our index faced similar challenges in paying for housing as those in the largest cities.
The 200 most disadvantaged places identified by our index are concentrated in three regions: Appalachia, South Texas, and the southern Cotton Belt. Interestingly, no county in the West, aside from those with significant Native American communities, appeared on the list. These places share a history of resource extraction and exploitation not seen to the same extent elsewhere in the United States. In each region, there was a dominant industry that shaped the economy until the 1960s, when automation and global competition disrupted the status quo.
Visiting these disadvantaged places, we couldn’t help but notice their resemblance to colonies or internal colonies within the U.S. This parallels the terminology used by Black scholars and activists to describe the exploitation of communities of color within the country. Through historical research, ethnographic observations, and in-depth interviews, we sought to build on this work and gain a deeper understanding of these communities.
In central Appalachia, we witnessed the remnants of company towns and narrow valleys known as hollows. Clay County, Kentucky, for example, was once home to salt barons and subsistence farms before Big Timber and Big Coal took over. Today, the region is ravaged by the opioid crisis, with a sense of despair due to the loss of community spaces and recreational activities.
South Texas has a history of massive spinach and onion fields that brought great profits to landowners, while the laborers who worked the land faced unimaginable hardships. Social hierarchy was evident in the appearance of towns, with white neighborhoods having better infrastructure compared to the Mexican parts of town. Generations of Mexican American children lost out on education opportunities due to seasonal migration for work, leading to high illiteracy rates that still persist.
In the Cotton Belt region, grand antebellum homes contrast with the reality of violence faced by Black residents. Places like Leflore County, Mississippi, have disproportionately high rates of interpersonal violence, surpassing even that of Chicago. These regions have a long history of violence, perpetuated by government and used as a tool to oppress Black Americans.
Throughout these regions, common themes emerged, including unequal schooling, the collapse of social infrastructure, violence, public corruption, and structural racism ingrained in government programs.
On the other end of the spectrum, exploring the places identified as the most advantaged was also important in our research. Surprisingly, the index led us to the upper Midwest, specifically Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa. These places have low poverty rates, healthy births, long life expectancies, and high rates of upward mobility for low-income children. They began as agricultural communities that benefited from the availability of land through the Homestead Act of 1862. Investing in schools over generations contributed to high graduation rates and college enrollment. These counties also experienced low rates of violent crime, income inequality, and public corruption. Social capital is abundant, with residents actively participating in community activities and organizations.
However, even these advantaged places face their own challenges. Local job opportunities…
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
