User talk:Amcook

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome! My name is Cindamuse, and I'm an Online Ambassador. We are a group of experienced Wikipedians who offer assistance, support, and mentorship for newcomers. You don't need to read anything; you can just jump right in and try to improve Wikipedia. If you need help, you can talk with us right now, or you can leave me a message on my user talk page. Have fun! ~~

Editing cheatsheet
Forgot how that code worked?

Summary of policies and guidelines
A quick reference for Wikipedia's "rules"

Find the page for your course
Forgot the link to your course's page?

Starting an article
Guide to starting your first article

Chat with us: Ask a question on the classroom IRC channel or on the regular help chat . Just enter your Wikipedia user name, fill in the words you see in the image, and click connect.

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Hi Amanda, welcome to Wikipedia! Here's some WikiLove for you, in the form of a cheeseburger. You can give other people WikiLove by going on their user discussion page (the "Discussion" tab next to their User page) and clicking on the red heart icon near the upper right hand side of the screen. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi Amanda, I like how you have a link on your user page to the class page. I did the same for my page too after seeing yours. Ylor916 (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Hi Amcook!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Poverty graph.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Poverty graph.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memo: Substantive Review[edit]

Hello Amanda,

I enjoyed reviewing your article this week. I see that you are still in the outlining/nuts-and-bolts stage. Given this, there was not much of an opportunity for me to edit what you have currently written. So instead I carefully reviewed your outline (as well as the existing entry for the working poor) and decided to jump into the literature myself. I first turned to some of the readings that have been recommended to our class for the week we discussed the working poor (e.g., Chilman 1991 and Hoynes et al. 2005). I also sought readings for topics you mention in your outline. I downloaded over a dozen documents and web-archives that have inspired my comments below. I am happy to share these files with you if you’re interested. (It’s probably too much to e-mail, so I can put them on a flash drive for you).

References:

I have checked your sources, and for the most part they’re solid. I just have a couple concerns. Your outline states that your definition of the working poor is inspired by Newman, but she is not cited in the definition edit you added to the article earlier in the semester.

I like your use of the Luxembourg Income Survey, but how do you plan to cite this information? Are you pulling this data from a publication or are you downloading the dataset yourself and running the descriptive statistics? If it’s the latter, I’m concerned that this may be inappropriate since it would not be an analysis that is peer reviewed nor is it project sanctioned by a research institution. If you have not done so already, I would verify with Sandra or Wikipedia that such information is acceptable before you progress further.

Also, much of the information on the existing Wikipedia entry is not cited (e.g., the entire subsection titled “Definitions Elsewhere Around the World”). I don’t know how much of this – if any - you’re responsible for, but it’s a clear weakness on the page. In fact, as I read the article on 13th of November, there are only two sources referenced on the page, but I’m sure these issues are already on your agenda. Final point on references: I have found that managing references on Wikipedia are time consuming. I would be careful not to postpone this much longer.

Lead Section:

Neither the existing Wikipedia entry for the working poor nor your outline includes a “lead section,” which is necessary for all Wikipedia entries to provide a “stand-alone concise summary of the article” (page 4 of the syllabus). I image that you are waiting to construct this section after your outline is beefed up some more. But, maybe it’s best to draft this section now. I think of it as an extended thesis statement of the article. It will help you place boundaries on the body of text. Also, similar to a thesis statement, I think of the lead section as the place where you “sell” the article to the reader by briefly demonstrating why your topic is important.

Definitions/Conceptualizations:

I have a couple suggestions to improve your definition section. One minor cosmetic improvement: it may be wise to note that the U.S. Department of Labor conceptualizes the working poor as person who spent more than one-half a year (i.e., at least 27 weeks) in the labor force. You simple state “at least 27 weeks,” but it’s important to remind readers that this is not an arbitrary number, but instead it is the threshold for more than half of a year.

More importantly, I recommend developing a detailed introductory section for the definition subsection (i.e., one to three paragraphs that proceeds and guides the other sub-subsection titled “Definition in the United States,” “Definition in Europe,” and “Definitions Elsewhere in the World”). Such a section should clarify that, regardless of setting, two conditions must first be defined in order to identify working poor membership: work and poverty. Both of these concepts are tricky and it’s important to admit this challenge in the article. Note that some institutions and scholars define “work” as labor market involvement, in which unemployment status would suffice. Also note that there are often time restrictions (e.g., at least 27 weeks in the past year for the U.S. Department of Labor). Furthermore, poverty status must also be defined. Some consider it below the absolute poverty threshold set by the Census (e.g., the U.S. Department of Labor), while others employ relative thresholds (e.g. European nations, according to the existing article). I would note that this becomes even trickier when poverty is generally measured by family or household unit. Thus, for many definitions, dependents of those who are both involved in the labor market (e.g., “working”) and whose income falls below a poverty threshold are considered members of the working poor since their overall household is defined as such. Also, what about undocumented workers? How are they accounted for within these strict definitions? My point is that the working poor is a murky concept and it’s important to highlight this issue in your article.

Beyond technical definitions, I think it’s worthwhile to highlight some of the theoretical arguments on the significance of the working poor. For example, the 1977 National Council on Welfare (a frequently cited piece throughout the literature I have read) frames the working poor as members of the “invisible poor.” The authors of this reports claim the working poor “haven no single characteristic which readily sets them apart and allows them to be easily identified.” Additionally, it may be worthwhile to summarize some of the key points of Newman’s No Shame in My Game. I have only limitedly skimmed through this book, but I imagine a key theme relevant to highlight in your article is dignity-through-labor. Other theoretical connections may include: the feminization of poverty, workfare, geography of opportunity (e.g., disconnect between where the poor reside and where decent work opportunities exist), and the deserving versus the undeserving poor (I elaborate on this application later in this memo).

Lastly, perhaps you can provide some historical context. While you don’t want your article to spin out of control, it may be useful to add one or two sentences stating that the working poor, as a general notion, has been long under investigation by social scientists. I would quickly note Marx on the proletariat and then, if possible, note when the “working poor” became an official concept upheld by many governmental agencies in the First World.

Characteristics of the Working Poor:

I strongly recommend that you develop a section titled “Characteristics of the Working Poor.” If you intend to maintain the global scope of this article, I imagine this will become somewhat challenging, but I still think it’s important. I have a few suggestions for a discussion of working poor characteristics in the United States. First, you should state that the working poor accounts for most of the poor in the United States (this is a point consistent in the literature, but I’m sure it is best cited with a Bureau of Labor Statistics or a Census report). I highly recommend that you read Chilman (1991) if you have not done so already. This reading provides some clear details concerning the demographic pattern of working poor Americans. For example, she notes that the working poor – or at least the heads of working poor families – are more likely to be female and that the relative size of the working poor (i.e., proportion of poverty population) has increased from the 1970s through the 1980s (Chilman 1991). Other demographic variables to consider include race and age (also see Blank 1991).

Another interesting point to consider, relevant for a discussion of deserving and undeserving poverty, is the worldview of the working poor. Small and Newman (2001) claim that the working poor do “boundary work” (FYI: there is a Wikipedia article on boundary work for you to link to) by defining themselves in opposition to the poor who do not work.

These recommendations are closely linked to the points I make in the previous section. Ultimately, I think it is very important that this article details how to locate the working poor (i.e., definition/conceptualization section) and review the general trends of this population discovered by social scientists (i.e., characteristics section).

Explanations of, and Proposed Solutions for, the Working Poor:

Your outline includes explanations and solutions that are embedded under broader sections of “qualitative studies” and “quantitative studies.” I’m a little confused on why qualitative researchers would highlight the rise of service sector labor, decline of the labor movement, and a weakening welfare state while quantitative researchers would highlight demographic characteristics, welfare state generosity, and labor market institutions. I don’t see much rhyme and reason to this organization. For example, why would a qualitative researcher highlight the rise of the service sector economy but quantitative research would not? Similarly, why are qualitative studies limited to “U.S. urban centers” and quantitative studies limited to “cross-national studies of affluent democracies”?

It may be best to organize headings that are more reachable to the masses. A Wikipedia user may not find much use in reading sub-sections on qualitative and quantitative research (especially since many intro to sociology students are just learning the differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative inquiry). In my opinion, an encyclopedia entry on this topic is best organized by the sub-subheadings you include under your current qualitative and quantitative headings: explanations and proposed solutions.

I imagine it is best to cut and slice both the explanation and proposed solution sections first into large opposing chunks. For example, for the proposed solution section I would first divide it into structural explanations (e.g., employment opportunities) and individual-level explanations (e.g., employment aspirations). I recommend reading Hoynes et al. (2005) who suggest that economic growth in the 80s and 90s did not result in a decline in poverty because the wage gap was expanding during that time. Perhaps a strong block quote for the structure point can be the following from Chilman (1991), “To a large extent, working poor families are in their situation because of problems in the economy; the changed nature of jobs; political trends and government politics; business practices; defects in urban and rural development; and racism, ethnocentrism, and sexism.” With respect to individual-level explanations, you may find it useful to return to either Mead or Murray. I believe one of these authors outline a discussion of low-wage workers as lacking the aspiration to move up organizational hierarchies through hard work. Following such a broad division of explanations, I would then include other key ideas in the literature such as a discussion of social networks and how those networks maintain labor market segmentation (e.g., see Waldinger and Lichter 2003). Other potential explanations to consider include human capital theory, queuing theory (i.e., employer and job-seeker preference), and labor market segmentation (i.e., the primary and the secondary market).

Only after you detail the most popular diagnoses should you highlight common prescriptions. Similar to how explanations will vary, so too will proposed solutions. Again, I would cut and slice this portion of the article by first distinguishing two or three largely opposing prescriptions. This might include a general distinction between expanding the welfare state / regulating the market one the one hand and reducing the welfare state / deregulating the market on the other hand. Many of the specific points for the former proposition (e.g., raise the minimum wage, expand and increase housing subsidies, etc.) can be found in Chilman (1991). Points for the latter may be a little more difficult to find, but I’m sure some reputable right-of-center economists have addressed the manner.

In summary, I think your article would be best organized thematically, rather than by review of qualitative and quantitative research. Indeed, you may find a better organization than what I’m proposing, but I do think most visitors to your article will be looking for clear answers to one, two, or all of the following three questions: Who are the working poor? What causes the working poor? and What should be done to solve the working poor problem (if there’s a problem at all)? A beefed up definition section and a new characteristics section will address the first question. I encourage you to develop a way to clearly answer the second and third questions.

Miscellaneous Points:

Lastly, I recommend you consider a few less critical issues. First, you may find it beneficial to include a few paragraphs that help situate the working poor discussion (at least in America) relative to a broader discussion of poverty and the economy. I have encountered this interesting notion of the U.S. poverty rate being “sticky” during the 80s and 90s. I’ve already hinted to this point. Essentially, it refers to the poverty rate remaining stable, and at times growing, during economic growth. A common explanation put forth concerns the working poor and the widening wage gap (see Blank 1991 and Hoynes et al. 2005). Second, it may be valuable to address how the middle class and the public at large (particularly the electorate) perceive the working poor. Here you could include discussions of political will for workfare (see Peck 2002). Overall, a discussion of public attitudes towards the working poor was absent in the readings I did on this subject. While it’s not critical for your article, I think it may be a nice addition to include a few findings concerning public opinion. I can imagine two general attitudes for the working poor. On the one hand, I can imagine some people seeing the working poor as honorable – “At least they’re working!” – and less deserving of poverty than the non-working poor. On the other hand, I can imagine some people seeing the working poor as economically and professional deficient – “There’re too stupid or too lazy to move up the economic ladder.”

Closing Remarks:

I hope the comments above will motivate the development of your project. Ultimately, I think you are constructing an important article and I’m looking forward to reading it at the end of the semester. Please let me know if you would like me to clarify any of my comments. Also, don’t hesitate to ask for the working poor readings I have collected on my hard drive.

Take care,

Josh / Joshseim (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References:

Blank, Rebecca M. 1991. “Why Were Poverty Rates So High in the 1980s?” NBER Working Paper No. 3878.

Chilman, Catherine S. 1991. “Working Poor Families: Trends, Causes, Effects, and Suggested Policies.” Family Relations 40(2):191-8.

Hoynes, Hilary, Marainne Page, and Ann Huff Stevens. 2005. “Poverty in America: Trends and Explanations.” NBER Working Paper No. 11681.

The National Council on Welfare. 1977. “The Working Poor: A Statistical Profile Prepared by the National Council of Welfare.” The National Council on Welfare.

Small, Mario Luis and Katherine Newman. 2001. “Urban Poverty After The Truly Disadvantaged: The Rediscovery of the Family, the Neighborhood, and Culture.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:23-45.

Waldinger, Roger and Michael Lichter. 2003. How The Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

File:Workpoverty sector.jpeg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Workpoverty sector.jpeg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.