论文部分内容阅读
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 can’t afford the first month’s rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment， you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. If you don’t 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.
It’s 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. 约翰逊总统向贫穷宣战，这一举措在当时可谓是空前绝后，即便是继他之后的美国政府也无法与之匹敌。他说，“最有力的武器”将是“更好的学校、更好的健康、更好的家园、更好的培训和更好的就业机会。”
因此，自1964年起之后的近十年时间里，联邦政府在这一方面——为最需要帮助的人们——至少投入了部分物力和财力。他们早该这么做了。启蒙计划、法律服务计划和就业工作团等政府项目应运而生，并一直延续至今。医疗补助计划正式确立。社会安全保险的改进也大幅减少了老年人中的贫困人口。
政府有责任代表弱势和贫困群体进行干预——这一原则似乎在约翰逊时代就得到了确立。但是，我们从来没有足够的资金对抗贫穷，而且约翰逊发现自己正日益为另外一场更致命的战争——那场在越南的战争——所牵制。尽管资金支持不足，“对贫困宣战”仍然遭到保守知识分子和政治家的强烈抵制。
他们认为，这些政府项目对穷人没有任何帮助，因为贫穷的根源在于穷人自身的扭曲心理——贫穷不是工资低或缺乏工作机会和教育所造成的，其罪魁祸首是穷人恶劣的心态和不良的生活方式。到里根任期时，这一观念已成为保守意识形态的基石。
抱着这种观念，权威人士和政治家们至少在过去的50年来一直对穷人的性格缺陷和坏习惯心存不满。在这些人眼里，穷人是懒惰、不负责任的，而且容易染上瘾癖。穷人不结婚，还儿女一大堆。那么，如果他们不得不忍受严重的物质匮乏，如果他们在领取薪水之前就花光了身上的钱，如果他们不能保证餐桌上总能有吃的，这怨不了别人，只能怪他们自己。 20世纪90年代，随着两党联手共同批判社会福利制度，上述对穷人的偏见突然转向，将攻击的矛头直指女性。贫穷的单身母亲被视为所谓“贫穷怪圈”现象中的关键一环。她们待在家里不工作，靠领取社会救济金糊口度日，给孩子树立的是“有害的榜样”。有影响力的政策制定者们渐渐相信，与其让孩子生活在这样的环境中，还不如把孩子送给收费的专业育儿员照管，甚至是送去孤儿院。
福利制度“改革”是解决之道，旨在终结对贫困家庭的经济支持，以及治愈穷人们自己孕育出来的“贫穷文化”—— 据说这是他们苦难的根源。让我们回忆一下最初的福利制度改革法案，应该是由比尔·克林顿总统签署的一部法案，包括了一项一亿美元的财政拨款，用于为低收入妇女提供“贞操培训”。
经济大衰退过后，人們理应抛弃这种将过错归咎于受害者的贫困理论。区区几个月内，就有数以百万计的人跨越了官方制定的贫困线。其中不仅有下岗的蓝领工人，还有被裁掉的技术人员、管理人员、律师及其他领域的从业人员，他们原来都享受着舒适的生活。没有人可以指责这些“新穷一族”作出了糟糕的决定或选择了不健康的生活方式。他们受过教育、勤勤恳恳、胸怀大志，然而他们现在也成了穷人——申请食品券，出入临时收容所，排队争抢零售业最低端的工作。这应该是专家们不得不承认事实的时刻：贫穷不是一个人性格上的缺陷，也不是缺乏动力；贫穷就是缺钱。
对于大多数贫困妇女而言，无论在经济繁荣还是萧条时期，缺钱主要是工资过低造成的。我在撰写《五分一毛：聚焦美国福利改革之弊》时，曾从事过好多工作：服务员、养老院看护、酒店服务员、沃尔玛超市柜员和家政女佣。我选择这些工作并不是因为它们是低收入工作，而是因为它们是女性最容易得到的低端工作。
我发现，在许多方面，这些工作就是一种陷阱：它们提供的收入如此微薄，你甚至没法攒下个几百美元，以帮助自己过渡到薪酬更好的工作。从事这种工作，你常常不能自由安排工作时间，因此你无法照顾孩子，也没法去找第二职业。在其中的许多岗位上，即使是年轻女性也会很快开始感受到体能的衰退——尤其是膝盖和背部的毛病——可能会给她们的职业生涯画上一个痛苦的句号。
我也惊愕地发现，从某些方面而言，做个穷人实际上要付出更为昂贵的代价。如果付不起租一间公寓所需的首月房租和押金，你就可能会被困在极不经济的住宅式汽车旅馆。如果你没有厨房，甚至连冰箱和微波炉都没有，那么你将不得不依赖便利店食品过活——这种食物不但缺乏人体必需的营养，定价还惊人地高。如果你需要贷款，就像大多数穷人最终都不得不求助于贷款一样，你承受的贷款利息到头来比富人还要高出好多倍。贫穷——尤其是有孩子需要抚养和照顾时——永远是一件极有风险的事。
大多数私企不允许请病假。在许多私企中，员工若是一天不上班，就会失去工作，即使是在家里照顾生病的孩子也不行。车坏了，也意味着扣工资和意外的花销。车灯坏了，会招来违规罚单，罚款额比换新车灯的费用还要高，另外还可能会产生庭审费。如果一个债权人拒不合作，很可能会收到法院传票，乃至逮捕令。再多的金融常识也无法让人具备应付如此突发情况的能力，或填补本来就低得可怜的收入。我们的政治文化没有将低收入的母亲视为忍辱负重的女英雄，反而仍然倾向于将她们归为罪大恶极之人和促成“贫穷怪圈”现象之人。
因贫穷而导致的刑事犯罪数量，如果要说的话，自经济衰退以来便加速上升：要求临时资助金申请者进行药检的州越来越多；孩子逃学，要被处以巨额罚款；拖欠债务，就要被关进监狱。这些举措与约翰逊时代的做法背道而驰，无情地颠覆了“政府有责任向穷人伸出援助之手”的原则。令人遗憾的是，面对高得惊人的贫困率，世界上最富有的国家仍保持着一副满不在乎的样子，而这正好可以用作挡箭牌：继续把贫穷归咎于穷人本身，而非经济大环境或无力的社会支持。
现在是时候重拾国家对赤贫者负有集体责任的理念了，他们当中女性多得离谱，尤其是有色人种女性。在此之前，我们需要意识到这样一个事实：那些打扫我们的家和办公室、为我们做饭、服侍我们进餐、照顾老人的低收入女性——她们赚的钱不足以维持生计——她们，才是真正的社会慈善家。
1. Lyndon B. Johnson： 林登·B. 约翰逊（1908—1973），第36任美国总统，人们普遍认为他在任期内的主要功绩是通过了老年保健医疗制度、医疗补助制度、民权法和选举权法。
2. 该段中提到的几项政府举措依次为：1）Head Start： 启蒙计划，指美国联邦政府为0—5岁的低收入家庭的儿童以及他们的家庭提供综合性的教育、医疗、营养服务；2）Legal Services： 法律服务计划，由美国联邦政府资助地区法律服务中心，对当地贫困地区的公民事务提供免费的法律咨询服务；3）Job Corps： 就业工作团，为16—21岁的贫困青年提供宿舍，举办职业训练，帮助弱势青年培养自力更生的能力；4）Medicaid： 医疗补助计划，其对象主要为未成年人、低收入孕妇、低收入老人和残疾人；5）Social Security： 美国社会安全保险，指美国联邦政府在全国范围内对老年人、满足条件的美国居民遗属和部分残疾人士提供财政资金支持。
3. 此处指越南战争（Vietnam War， 1955—1975），发生在冷战时期，为美国等支持的南越对抗苏联等支持的北越和越共的一场战争，最终美国在战争中遭受了严重损失。
4. backlash：（尤指对政治或社会事件的）强烈反应，抵制。
5. Reagan： 罗纳德·里根（Ronald Reagan， 1911—2004），第40任美国总统，也是著名的演说家；ideology：（政治或经济上的）思想体系，意识形态。
6. pick up on： 把……作为己有；pundit： 权威，专家；bemoan： 抱怨，表示不满。
7. shiftless： 懒惰的，不求上进的；prone to： 易于发生某事（尤指不好或有害的事）。 8. bipartisan： 由两党组成的，代表两党的（尤指观点对立的两党）；welfare：（政府向穷人或失业者发放的）救济金；misogynistic： 憎恨女人的，厌恶女人的。
9. the cycle of poverty： 贫穷怪圈，又称世袭贫穷、跨代贫穷，指贫穷在某个固定人群或阶层中的延续和传递，这一恶性循环若没有外力干预极难打破。
10. imperiled： 处于危险中的；selfinduced： 由自己导致的；the culture of poverty： 贫穷文化，由“世袭贫穷”衍生出来的术语，指由于长期处于物质贫乏状态而产生的一种次级文化，这种文化具有特殊的价值观与生活方式，经过世代传递影响贫穷者的态度与行为。
11. welfare reform bill： 此处指美国总统比尔·克林顿在1996年签署的《个人责任与就业机会协调法》，该法案试图通过强制福利求助对象参与就业来解决贫困问题；allocation： 划拨的款项（或经费）；chastity： 贞洁，节操。
12. The Great Recession： 经济大衰退，不要与20世纪30年代的“经济大萧条”（The Great Depression）混淆。大衰退是在2007年末开始的一场由金融危机所引发的经济衰退。国际货币基金组织认为，就总体影响而言，这是二战以来最严重的全球性经济衰退。
13. laid-off： 被解雇了的，下岗的；downsized： 被裁员的。
14. nouveau： 新近产生的。
15. food stamp：（政府发给失业者或贫民的）粮票，食品券。
16. Nickel and Dimed： On （Not） Getting by in America： 《五分一毛：聚焦美国福利改革之弊》。作者芭芭拉·埃伦赖克隐瞒自己作家和生物学博士的身份，化身成离婚无子女的中年家庭主妇，体验底层贫困人民的生活。
17. deterioration： 退化，恶化。
18. perpetual： 永恒的，永久的； high-wire act：（因风险很大）须慢慢（或谨慎）对付的事。
19. ticket： 罚单；fine： 罚款；court cost：庭审费，指为法庭诉讼庭审所支出的费用，包括法院收费、法律费用、雜项开支及酬金等。
20. exigency： 应急措施，应急情况。
21. miscreant： 坏蛋，无赖。
22. criminalization： 刑事定罪，宣告（某人）犯法；impose： 强制实行；steep：（价格、收费等）过高的，过分昂贵的；truancy： 逃学，旷课。
23. constitute： 实际上等于，相当于；inversion： 逆转，颠倒；extend： 提供，给予。
24. complacent： 漠不关心的。
25. disproportionately： 不成比例地。
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 can’t afford the first month’s rent and security deposit you need in order to rent an apartment， you may get stuck in an overpriced residential motel. If you don’t 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.
It’s 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. 约翰逊总统向贫穷宣战，这一举措在当时可谓是空前绝后，即便是继他之后的美国政府也无法与之匹敌。他说，“最有力的武器”将是“更好的学校、更好的健康、更好的家园、更好的培训和更好的就业机会。”
因此，自1964年起之后的近十年时间里，联邦政府在这一方面——为最需要帮助的人们——至少投入了部分物力和财力。他们早该这么做了。启蒙计划、法律服务计划和就业工作团等政府项目应运而生，并一直延续至今。医疗补助计划正式确立。社会安全保险的改进也大幅减少了老年人中的贫困人口。
政府有责任代表弱势和贫困群体进行干预——这一原则似乎在约翰逊时代就得到了确立。但是，我们从来没有足够的资金对抗贫穷，而且约翰逊发现自己正日益为另外一场更致命的战争——那场在越南的战争——所牵制。尽管资金支持不足，“对贫困宣战”仍然遭到保守知识分子和政治家的强烈抵制。
他们认为，这些政府项目对穷人没有任何帮助，因为贫穷的根源在于穷人自身的扭曲心理——贫穷不是工资低或缺乏工作机会和教育所造成的，其罪魁祸首是穷人恶劣的心态和不良的生活方式。到里根任期时，这一观念已成为保守意识形态的基石。
抱着这种观念，权威人士和政治家们至少在过去的50年来一直对穷人的性格缺陷和坏习惯心存不满。在这些人眼里，穷人是懒惰、不负责任的，而且容易染上瘾癖。穷人不结婚，还儿女一大堆。那么，如果他们不得不忍受严重的物质匮乏，如果他们在领取薪水之前就花光了身上的钱，如果他们不能保证餐桌上总能有吃的，这怨不了别人，只能怪他们自己。 20世纪90年代，随着两党联手共同批判社会福利制度，上述对穷人的偏见突然转向，将攻击的矛头直指女性。贫穷的单身母亲被视为所谓“贫穷怪圈”现象中的关键一环。她们待在家里不工作，靠领取社会救济金糊口度日，给孩子树立的是“有害的榜样”。有影响力的政策制定者们渐渐相信，与其让孩子生活在这样的环境中，还不如把孩子送给收费的专业育儿员照管，甚至是送去孤儿院。
福利制度“改革”是解决之道，旨在终结对贫困家庭的经济支持，以及治愈穷人们自己孕育出来的“贫穷文化”—— 据说这是他们苦难的根源。让我们回忆一下最初的福利制度改革法案，应该是由比尔·克林顿总统签署的一部法案，包括了一项一亿美元的财政拨款，用于为低收入妇女提供“贞操培训”。
经济大衰退过后，人們理应抛弃这种将过错归咎于受害者的贫困理论。区区几个月内，就有数以百万计的人跨越了官方制定的贫困线。其中不仅有下岗的蓝领工人，还有被裁掉的技术人员、管理人员、律师及其他领域的从业人员，他们原来都享受着舒适的生活。没有人可以指责这些“新穷一族”作出了糟糕的决定或选择了不健康的生活方式。他们受过教育、勤勤恳恳、胸怀大志，然而他们现在也成了穷人——申请食品券，出入临时收容所，排队争抢零售业最低端的工作。这应该是专家们不得不承认事实的时刻：贫穷不是一个人性格上的缺陷，也不是缺乏动力；贫穷就是缺钱。
对于大多数贫困妇女而言，无论在经济繁荣还是萧条时期，缺钱主要是工资过低造成的。我在撰写《五分一毛：聚焦美国福利改革之弊》时，曾从事过好多工作：服务员、养老院看护、酒店服务员、沃尔玛超市柜员和家政女佣。我选择这些工作并不是因为它们是低收入工作，而是因为它们是女性最容易得到的低端工作。
我发现，在许多方面，这些工作就是一种陷阱：它们提供的收入如此微薄，你甚至没法攒下个几百美元，以帮助自己过渡到薪酬更好的工作。从事这种工作，你常常不能自由安排工作时间，因此你无法照顾孩子，也没法去找第二职业。在其中的许多岗位上，即使是年轻女性也会很快开始感受到体能的衰退——尤其是膝盖和背部的毛病——可能会给她们的职业生涯画上一个痛苦的句号。
我也惊愕地发现，从某些方面而言，做个穷人实际上要付出更为昂贵的代价。如果付不起租一间公寓所需的首月房租和押金，你就可能会被困在极不经济的住宅式汽车旅馆。如果你没有厨房，甚至连冰箱和微波炉都没有，那么你将不得不依赖便利店食品过活——这种食物不但缺乏人体必需的营养，定价还惊人地高。如果你需要贷款，就像大多数穷人最终都不得不求助于贷款一样，你承受的贷款利息到头来比富人还要高出好多倍。贫穷——尤其是有孩子需要抚养和照顾时——永远是一件极有风险的事。
大多数私企不允许请病假。在许多私企中，员工若是一天不上班，就会失去工作，即使是在家里照顾生病的孩子也不行。车坏了，也意味着扣工资和意外的花销。车灯坏了，会招来违规罚单，罚款额比换新车灯的费用还要高，另外还可能会产生庭审费。如果一个债权人拒不合作，很可能会收到法院传票，乃至逮捕令。再多的金融常识也无法让人具备应付如此突发情况的能力，或填补本来就低得可怜的收入。我们的政治文化没有将低收入的母亲视为忍辱负重的女英雄，反而仍然倾向于将她们归为罪大恶极之人和促成“贫穷怪圈”现象之人。
因贫穷而导致的刑事犯罪数量，如果要说的话，自经济衰退以来便加速上升：要求临时资助金申请者进行药检的州越来越多；孩子逃学，要被处以巨额罚款；拖欠债务，就要被关进监狱。这些举措与约翰逊时代的做法背道而驰，无情地颠覆了“政府有责任向穷人伸出援助之手”的原则。令人遗憾的是，面对高得惊人的贫困率，世界上最富有的国家仍保持着一副满不在乎的样子，而这正好可以用作挡箭牌：继续把贫穷归咎于穷人本身，而非经济大环境或无力的社会支持。
现在是时候重拾国家对赤贫者负有集体责任的理念了，他们当中女性多得离谱，尤其是有色人种女性。在此之前，我们需要意识到这样一个事实：那些打扫我们的家和办公室、为我们做饭、服侍我们进餐、照顾老人的低收入女性——她们赚的钱不足以维持生计——她们，才是真正的社会慈善家。
1. Lyndon B. Johnson： 林登·B. 约翰逊（1908—1973），第36任美国总统，人们普遍认为他在任期内的主要功绩是通过了老年保健医疗制度、医疗补助制度、民权法和选举权法。
2. 该段中提到的几项政府举措依次为：1）Head Start： 启蒙计划，指美国联邦政府为0—5岁的低收入家庭的儿童以及他们的家庭提供综合性的教育、医疗、营养服务；2）Legal Services： 法律服务计划，由美国联邦政府资助地区法律服务中心，对当地贫困地区的公民事务提供免费的法律咨询服务；3）Job Corps： 就业工作团，为16—21岁的贫困青年提供宿舍，举办职业训练，帮助弱势青年培养自力更生的能力；4）Medicaid： 医疗补助计划，其对象主要为未成年人、低收入孕妇、低收入老人和残疾人；5）Social Security： 美国社会安全保险，指美国联邦政府在全国范围内对老年人、满足条件的美国居民遗属和部分残疾人士提供财政资金支持。
3. 此处指越南战争（Vietnam War， 1955—1975），发生在冷战时期，为美国等支持的南越对抗苏联等支持的北越和越共的一场战争，最终美国在战争中遭受了严重损失。
4. backlash：（尤指对政治或社会事件的）强烈反应，抵制。
5. Reagan： 罗纳德·里根（Ronald Reagan， 1911—2004），第40任美国总统，也是著名的演说家；ideology：（政治或经济上的）思想体系，意识形态。
6. pick up on： 把……作为己有；pundit： 权威，专家；bemoan： 抱怨，表示不满。
7. shiftless： 懒惰的，不求上进的；prone to： 易于发生某事（尤指不好或有害的事）。 8. bipartisan： 由两党组成的，代表两党的（尤指观点对立的两党）；welfare：（政府向穷人或失业者发放的）救济金；misogynistic： 憎恨女人的，厌恶女人的。
9. the cycle of poverty： 贫穷怪圈，又称世袭贫穷、跨代贫穷，指贫穷在某个固定人群或阶层中的延续和传递，这一恶性循环若没有外力干预极难打破。
10. imperiled： 处于危险中的；selfinduced： 由自己导致的；the culture of poverty： 贫穷文化，由“世袭贫穷”衍生出来的术语，指由于长期处于物质贫乏状态而产生的一种次级文化，这种文化具有特殊的价值观与生活方式，经过世代传递影响贫穷者的态度与行为。
11. welfare reform bill： 此处指美国总统比尔·克林顿在1996年签署的《个人责任与就业机会协调法》，该法案试图通过强制福利求助对象参与就业来解决贫困问题；allocation： 划拨的款项（或经费）；chastity： 贞洁，节操。
12. The Great Recession： 经济大衰退，不要与20世纪30年代的“经济大萧条”（The Great Depression）混淆。大衰退是在2007年末开始的一场由金融危机所引发的经济衰退。国际货币基金组织认为，就总体影响而言，这是二战以来最严重的全球性经济衰退。
13. laid-off： 被解雇了的，下岗的；downsized： 被裁员的。
14. nouveau： 新近产生的。
15. food stamp：（政府发给失业者或贫民的）粮票，食品券。
16. Nickel and Dimed： On （Not） Getting by in America： 《五分一毛：聚焦美国福利改革之弊》。作者芭芭拉·埃伦赖克隐瞒自己作家和生物学博士的身份，化身成离婚无子女的中年家庭主妇，体验底层贫困人民的生活。
17. deterioration： 退化，恶化。
18. perpetual： 永恒的，永久的； high-wire act：（因风险很大）须慢慢（或谨慎）对付的事。
19. ticket： 罚单；fine： 罚款；court cost：庭审费，指为法庭诉讼庭审所支出的费用，包括法院收费、法律费用、雜项开支及酬金等。
20. exigency： 应急措施，应急情况。
21. miscreant： 坏蛋，无赖。
22. criminalization： 刑事定罪，宣告（某人）犯法；impose： 强制实行；steep：（价格、收费等）过高的，过分昂贵的；truancy： 逃学，旷课。
23. constitute： 实际上等于，相当于；inversion： 逆转，颠倒；extend： 提供，给予。
24. complacent： 漠不关心的。
25. disproportionately： 不成比例地。