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(shí)可謂是空前絕后，即便是繼他之后的美國(guó)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(jī)會(huì)。”

因此，自1964年起之后的近十年時(shí)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(cái)力。他們?cè)缭撨@么做了。啟蒙計(jì)劃、法律服務(wù)計(jì)劃和就業(yè)工作團(tuán)等政府項(xiàng)目應(yīng)運(yùn)而生，并一直延續(xù)至今。醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助計(jì)劃正式確立。社會(huì)安全保險(xiǎn)的改進(jìn)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(shì)和貧困群體進(jìn)行干預(yù)——這一原則似乎在約翰遜時(shí)代就得到了確立。但是，我們從來沒有足夠的資金對(duì)抗貧窮，而且約翰遜發(fā)現(xiàn)自己正日益為另外一場(chǎng)更致命的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)——那場(chǎng)在越南的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)——所牽制。盡管資金支持不足，“對(duì)貧困宣戰(zhàn)”仍然遭到保守知識(shí)分子和政治家的強(qiáng)烈抵制。

他們認(rèn)為，這些政府項(xiàng)目對(duì)窮人沒有任何幫助，因?yàn)樨毟F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(jī)會(huì)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(shí)，這一觀念已成為保守意識(shí)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(duì)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(fù)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(yán)重的物質(zhì)匱乏，如果他們?cè)陬I(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(jì)90年代，隨著兩黨聯(lián)手共同批判社會(huì)福利制度，上述對(duì)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(huì)救濟(jì)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(fèi)的專業(yè)育兒?jiǎn)T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(duì)貧困家庭的經(jīng)濟(jì)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(xiàng)一億美元的財(cái)政撥款，用于為低收入婦女提供“貞操培訓(xùn)”。

經(jīng)濟(jì)大衰退過后，人們理應(yīng)拋棄這種將過錯(cuò)歸咎于受害者的貧困理論。區(qū)區(qū)幾個(gè)月內(nèi)，就有數(shù)以百萬計(jì)的人跨越了官方制定的貧困線。其中不僅有下崗的藍(lán)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?cè)瓉矶枷硎苤孢m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(qǐng)食品券，出入臨時(shí)收容所，排隊(duì)爭(zhēng)搶零售業(yè)最低端的工作。這應(yīng)該是專家們不得不承認(rèn)事實(shí)的時(shí)刻：貧窮不是一個(gè)人性格上的缺陷，也不是缺乏動(dòng)力；貧窮就是缺錢。

對(duì)于大多數(shù)貧困婦女而言，無論在經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮還是蕭條時(shí)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(guó)福利改革之弊》時(shí)，曾從事過好多工作：服務(wù)員、養(yǎng)老院看護(hù)、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?yàn)樗鼈兪堑褪杖牍ぷ?，而是因?yàn)樗鼈兪桥宰钊菀椎玫降牡投斯ぷ鳌?/p>

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(gè)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(shí)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(huì)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(huì)給她們的職業(yè)生涯畫上一個(gè)痛苦的句號(hào)。

我也驚愕地發(fā)現(xiàn)，從某些方面而言，做個(gè)窮人實(shí)際上要付出更為昂貴的代價(jià)。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(huì)被困在極不經(jīng)濟(jì)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(yíng)養(yǎng)，定價(jià)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(shí)——永遠(yuǎn)是一件極有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的事。

大多數(shù)私企不允許請(qǐng)病假。在許多私企中，員工若是一天不上班，就會(huì)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(huì)招來違規(guī)罰單，罰款額比換新車燈的費(fèi)用還要高，另外還可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生庭審費(fèi)。如果一個(gè)債權(quán)人拒不合作，很可能會(huì)收到法院傳票，乃至逮捕令。再多的金融常識(shí)也無法讓人具備應(yīng)付如此突發(fā)情況的能力，或填補(bǔ)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(fù)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(jì)衰退以來便加速上升：要求臨時(shí)資助金申請(qǐng)者進(jìn)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(jìn)監(jiān)獄。這些舉措與約翰遜時(shí)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(duì)高得驚人的貧困率，世界上最富有的國(guó)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(jì)大環(huán)境或無力的社會(huì)支持。

現(xiàn)在是時(shí)候重拾國(guó)家對(duì)赤貧者負(fù)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(shí)到這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)：那些打掃我們的家和辦公室、為我們做飯、服侍我們進(jìn)餐、照顧老人的低收入女性——她們賺的錢不足以維持生計(jì)——她們，才是真正的社會(huì)慈善家。

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

2. 該段中提到的幾項(xiàng)政府舉措依次為：1）Head Start： 啟蒙計(jì)劃，指美國(guó)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(yíng)養(yǎng)服務(wù)；2）Legal Services： 法律服務(wù)計(jì)劃，由美國(guó)聯(lián)邦政府資助地區(qū)法律服務(wù)中心，對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)刎毨У貐^(qū)的公民事務(wù)提供免費(fèi)的法律咨詢服務(wù)；3）Job Corps： 就業(yè)工作團(tuán)，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(shì)青年培養(yǎng)自力更生的能力；4）Medicaid： 醫(yī)療補(bǔ)助計(jì)劃，其對(duì)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(guó)社會(huì)安全保險(xiǎn)，指美國(guó)聯(lián)邦政府在全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)對(duì)老年人、滿足條件的美國(guó)居民遺屬和部分殘疾人士提供財(cái)政資金支持。

3. 此處指越南戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)（Vietnam War， 1955—1975），發(fā)生在冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期，為美國(guó)等支持的南越對(duì)抗蘇聯(lián)等支持的北越和越共的一場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，最終美國(guó)在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中遭受了嚴(yán)重?fù)p失。

4. backlash：（尤指對(duì)政治或社會(huì)事件的）強(qiáng)烈反應(yīng)，抵制。

5. Reagan： 羅納德·里根（Ronald Reagan， 1911—2004），第40任美國(guó)總統(tǒng)，也是著名的演說家；ideology：（政治或經(jīng)濟(jì)上的）思想體系，意識(shí)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(jìn)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(diǎn)對(duì)立的兩黨）；welfare：（政府向窮人或失業(yè)者發(fā)放的）救濟(jì)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(gè)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(xiǎn)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(zhǎng)期處于物質(zhì)貧乏狀態(tài)而產(chǎn)生的一種次級(jí)文化，這種文化具有特殊的價(jià)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(guó)總統(tǒng)比爾·克林頓在1996年簽署的《個(gè)人責(zé)任與就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)協(xié)調(diào)法》，該法案試圖通過強(qiáng)制福利求助對(duì)象參與就業(yè)來解決貧困問題；allocation： 劃撥的款項(xiàng)（或經(jīng)費(fèi)）；chastity： 貞潔，節(jié)操。

12. The Great Recession： 經(jīng)濟(jì)大衰退，不要與20世紀(jì)30年代的“經(jīng)濟(jì)大蕭條”（The Great Depression）混淆。大衰退是在2007年末開始的一場(chǎng)由金融危機(jī)所引發(fā)的經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退。國(guó)際貨幣基金組織認(rèn)為，就總體影響而言，這是二戰(zhàn)以來最嚴(yán)重的全球性經(jīng)濟(jì)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(guó)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(yàn)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(xiǎn)很大）須慢慢（或謹(jǐn)慎）對(duì)付的事。

19. ticket： 罰單；fine： 罰款；court cost：庭審費(fèi)，指為法庭訴訟庭審所支出的費(fèi)用，包括法院收費(fèi)、法律費(fèi)用、雜項(xiàng)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(qiáng)制實(shí)行；steep：（價(jià)格、收費(fèi)等）過高的，過分昂貴的；truancy： 逃學(xué)，曠課。

23. constitute： 實(shí)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。