In today’s society, despite the billions of dollars spent on anti-poverty programs, poverty remains a persistent problem. Many programs, like Social Security, have successfully lifted over 20 million people above the poverty line. But addressing poverty is not just about financial resources—it's also about making the right choices as a society.
The Pandemic Showed What's Possible: Dramatic Poverty Reduction
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. demonstrated just how much of a difference government intervention can make. The expanded Child Tax Credit slashed child poverty by more than a third, and enhanced social safety programs almost halved child poverty in just one year—a record-breaking drop. However, when these programs expired, child poverty rates shot right back up.
This reveals the potential of targeted policies to significantly reduce poverty, but it also highlights a major issue: sustainability. Can the U.S. maintain and expand these successful programs, or will we allow poverty to remain a choice that society continues to make?
Why Poverty Persists: A Clash of Interests
One reason poverty remains so difficult to tackle is the conflicting interests within society. For example, in Lexington, Massachusetts, many homeowners opposed zoning changes that would allow more affordable housing to be built in their affluent community. Meanwhile, those in need of housing were left frustrated.
One young resident, whose family relied on multifamily housing to afford living in Lexington, spoke out: "How do you think it feels when people of great privilege say they don’t want the kind of housing I live in because it might look ugly or doesn’t fit the character of the town? Are we really saying that the entry price to join our community is a million-dollar house?”
This situation illustrates one of the key obstacles in solving poverty: competing interests. Too many people benefit from the status quo. Homeowners want their property values to rise, while renters struggle with increasing housing costs. This leads to resistance against policies that could promote greater economic fairness, like building more affordable housing.
Balancing Morality and Self-Interest
While these competing interests often create a deadlock, change is possible. In Lexington, despite initial opposition, the town eventually approved the necessary zoning changes to allow more housing. Nearby towns followed suit, opening the door for more affordable housing options.
This outcome wasn’t inevitable. For years, Lexington had been criticized for its “liberal hypocrisy”—a community that proudly displayed "Black Lives Matter" and "refugees welcome" signs but fiercely opposed housing policies that would diversify and desegregate the area.
In this case, change happened partly due to a state law requiring towns with public transit access to allow more multifamily housing or risk losing state funding. While the real test will be whether the town follows through on building affordable housing, it shows that external pressures can push communities toward equity.
Poverty Isn’t Inevitable: The U.S. Can Afford to End It
Eliminating poverty will require not just small policy tweaks, like zoning reforms, but also bold, systemic changes. It’s often argued that addressing poverty is too expensive. But with over two-thirds of U.S. household wealth concentrated among the top 10%, while the bottom 50% owns just 2.5%, it’s clear that America has the resources to solve this problem. The question is whether we have the political and moral will.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said nearly 60 years ago, "There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the resources, the skills, and the techniques to get rid of poverty. The question is whether our nation has the will."
Choosing a Path Forward
The fight against poverty is complex and filled with competing interests, but change is possible. As Lexington shows, progress can happen when communities—and governments—commit to making difficult choices. It's time for the U.S. to take bold steps to reduce poverty and create a more equitable society.
Ending poverty is not just an economic decision; it's a moral imperative. We have the tools. Now we need the will.