“Pull Yourself Up By Your Bootstraps”: An American Mythology
Introduction
“Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!”, “All you have to do is put yourself out there!”, “If you just work hard you can achieve anything!” These American idioms all express the same ideology, that we exist in a meritocracy; a vacuum void of systematic oppression. If anyone, anywhere merely works hard enough the seemingly cemented hardships of poverty, discrimination, illness, etc. become malleable and one can craft the life they wish. This. Is. False. The validity of a meritocracy is founded in the assumption that we are all either on an even playing field from birth or that equity can be attained once one reaches an age of independence from their adolescent socioeconomic situation. These are ill-founded and simply wrong assumptions for three main reasons,
Based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, one must prioritize basic necessities prior to pursuing anything else. This coupled with finite resources makes poverty cyclical.
The discrepancy in quality of and access to education limits the knowledge and opportunities given to those unprioritized by the U.S. education system.
Racial and gender wage gaps do exist, and impact the lives of those who exist in these categories. Which in turn, impacts their ability to overcome adversities
Idioms such as those listed above are not harmless laissez-faire philosophies. They sustain mentalities of victim blaming, they erase as well as invalidate the lived experiences of minoritized groups, and they target specific demographics such as the poor, as well as the majority of minoritized groups primarily people of color and women. The data to debunk this mythology exists, but we must first connect the dots in order to see institutionalize oppression.
Unveiling Cyclical Poverty
In the United States the poverty threshold is determined by the Census Bureau. An individual is considered in poverty if “a family's total income is less than the family's threshold...” (United States Census Bureau. How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty. Updated: Aug.2019. Web.) A “poverty threshold” is the conservative amount the Census Bureau deems necessary for an individual to provide oneself with basic necessities, they refer to it as “statistical yardstick” to generally reflect a family’s needs.(United States Census Bureau. How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty. Updated: Aug.2019. Web.) According to the University of Michigan’s article Poverty in the U.S., the 2018 poverty threshold for a single individual under 65 years of age was $13,064 per year. This sum is meant to cover all of the individual’s needs i.e. housing and utilities, food, water, transportation, clothing, health care, education, etc. Everything one needs within the span of a year is not to exceed $13,064. In order to determine whether or not one is impoverished the census bureau subtracts the calculated threshold from the individual’s income. It is also important to note, the amount of income they use for this calculation is the pre-tax total. Meaning the amount of money one actually receives after federal and state income tax is taken, is not the number they are using to calculate poverty thresholds. If the sum is any amount over their calculated threshold, the individual is not considered in poverty. This categorization does limit one’s options for governmental financial assistance. The poverty threshold does nominally increase as children or adults are added to households. The 2019 Census Bureau poverty threshold for a two person household is a combined pre-tax income of $17,120. For a two person household with one child ranging anywhere from 0-18 years of age the poverty threshold only increases by $502, to a combined annual income of $17,622. (United States Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children 2019 Data. Updated: Jan,2020.Web.)
It is also critical to note that the census bureau does not include every U.S. citizen in their poverty census. On their website they state “poverty status cannot be determined for people in: institutional group quarters (such as prisons or nursing homes), college dormitories, military barracks, living situations without conventional housing, foster children under age 15 and not living with a family member.” (United States Census Bureau. How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty. Updated: Aug.2019. Web.) Thus, the vast majority of the homeless population is not counted in the U.S. poverty census.
When examining the demographics of individuals who do meet the Census Bureau’s criteria for poverty we also see patterns. According to the University of Michigan,
“Poverty rates for Black and Hispanic people greatly exceed the national average. In 2018, 22.5% of Black people and 18.8% of Hispanic people were poor… and 10.8% of Asian people.” (University of Michigan. Poverty in the U.S. Poverty Solutions – University of Michigan. Updated:2020. Web.)
While Black and Hispanic poverty demographics were given, there was no quotable information to be found on the U.S. Census Bureau website giving current Native Americans statistics of poverty levels. However, an article published by Pew Research Centers in 2014 states that “Native Americans have a higher poverty and unemployment rate when compared with the national average… About one-in-four American Indians and Alaska Natives were living in poverty in 2012.” (Krogstad, Jens. One-in-four Native Americans and Alaska Natives are living in poverty. Pew Research Center. June 2014. Web.)
Maslow’s Connection
Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, or rather “working harder” is not a viable or even relevant solution for those struggling with poverty. Given the unlivable sums previously stated we can deduce that an individual receiving nominal wages, has no financial autonomy. Thus they do not possess the financial security that would allow them to leave said positions in order to pursue upward mobility in society.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943). Image: Gabrielle Fox.
In 1943 the American Psychologist Abraham Maslow published a paper called “A theory of Human Motivation”. In said paper he defined what he believed to be the five major levels of human need. The first two levels of the hierarchy outline needs that are about physiological survival, i.e. food, water, shelter, and security. (Maslow, Abraham. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. 1943.) Those who live in poverty struggle with these first two levels of need. The need to not only provide the resources required for basic existence but also to ensure these materials for one’s family, is an enormous burden. Thus securing a consistent source of income becomes paramount to survival. This fact flies in the face of the Bootstrap mentality. Those who live in these circumstance exert themselves exceptionally hard, both physically and emotionally, in order to provide for their families. Teetering on the brink of stability as well as existence draws one into cyclical poverty, regardless of how hard they are working.
Knowledge is Power
Moving forward with the understanding that poverty is cyclical, it becomes evident that working harder or putting oneself “out there”, are not viable solutions for resolving such adversities. This conclusion then begs the question, what strategies do proponents of the Bootstrap mentality cite as making such adversities malleable? Primarily, knowledge and money are referenced as solutions. In terms of finances, the evidence does support the conclusion that higher education levels lead to higher income amounts. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, those with less than a high school diploma have an estimated median earning of $520/week. While those with at least a bachelor’s degree have a median earning estimate of $1,173/week. (Torpey, Elka. Measuring the Value of an Education. Career Outlook. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Pub. April 2018. Web.) However, just how accessible is higher education for those struggling with adversity? Furthermore, does the K-12 education system equally and equitably prepare each individual for higher education opportunities?
Short answer, no. The K-12 student experience varies drastically based on location, the question is why? According to an article published in 2016 by NPR, the breakdown of school funding in the U.S. on average looks like “45% local money, 45% from the state and 10% federal.” (Turner, Cory. Why America’s Schools have a Money Problem. National Public Radio(NPR). Pub.April,2016. Web.) Essentially the federal government only contributes roughly 10 cents of every dollar that public schools receive. The discrepancy of funding and further the discrepancy in quality of education, comes into play with the amount gathered by the local governments, (which accounts for nearly half of a schools budget) which is reliant upon property taxes.
“The problem with a school-funding system that relies so heavily on local property taxes is straightforward: Property values vary a lot from neighborhood to neighborhood, district to district. And with them, tax revenues.” (Turner, Cory. Why America’s Schools have a Money Problem. National Public Radio(NPR). Pub.April,2016. Web.)
Thus, if one lives in a low-income neighborhood, they will attend a low-income school. Schools such as these have significantly less ability to pay for quality materials, update their buildings and campuses, provide livable wages for their teachers and staff, based off of the amount of funding received. Again we are forced to consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. These institutions are supposed to educate students, however they must do so with run down facilities and run down materials, because they too must prioritize necessities such as food, lighting, materials for their intended function as an “institution of knowledge”, and the ever present monthly bills. Poverty is cyclical and institutions that reside within these neighborhoods are no exception to their monetary struggle. Public schools operate within a limited capability, their ability to successfully prepare students not only for higher education, but to give them quality fundamental knowledge is severely limited by and reliant upon on their funding. So can we realistically expect one to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when the quality of primary education they receive has not given them the basic tools they need to succeed? Even more than that, with the cost of higher education steadily growing, how is one supposed to accommodate a financial undertaking of massive proportions, when their ability to provide themselves basic necessity is insecure? The notion of liberating oneself through education only holds true for those who are given the proper resources and information in order to attain this goal.
Wage Gap
Attaining the monetary resources to lift oneself out of adversity is the last pillar of the Bootstrap myth. If we suspend reality and assume one is able receive a primary education that prepared them for higher levels of education; not only that but they received the financial advice and know-how to navigate the financial aid system in order to make the 4+ year endeavor moderately feasible, then they received a degree and have found employment post-graduation, they will still find themselves in a world where minoritized groups do not earn the same amount of money as white men do in the work place.
Pew Research Center published an analysis in 2016 entitled Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U.S. despite some progress, in which they analyze the 2015 median hourly wage data given by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. They found a discrepancy of wages earned based off of race as well as gender in comparison to white men. In descending order:
“Asian women earned…87 cents per dollar earned by a white man.”
“White women earned 82 cents per dollar earned by a white man.”
“Black men earned 73 cents for per dollar earned by a white man.”
“Hispanic men earned 69 cents per dollar earned by a white man.”
“Black women earned 65 cents per dollar earned by a white man.”
Hispanic women earned 58 cents per dollar earned by a white man.”
It is also notable that there has been “no progress in narrowing the wage gap…[for]Black and Hispanic men since 1980.”(Patten, Eileen. Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U.S. despite some progress. Pew Research Center. 2016. Web.)
How can we realistically expect minoritized groups to lift themselves out of adversity, when even with the attainment of the Bootstrap myth’s “solutions”, monetary resources are still not equitably distributed?
Conclusion
The answer is we can’t. Society has placed institutionalized wall after institutionalized wall in front of minoritized groups, ensuring a pattern of hardship; A pattern which they have little intention of supplying aid to overcome, other than to spout meaningless and frankly inflammatory idioms such as “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” What was not anticipated however, was that these adversities would force minoritized groups to develop an unparalleled level of resiliency. We have made it our mission to pull ourselves out of darkness, as no one else will. It is now our responsibility to cultivate this resiliency, generation after generation for survival; For the survival of our people, our voices, our stories, and our inner strength that will ultimately and has already, created change. A professor of mine once said, it is the job of those who benefit from a system of oppression to dismantle it. I believe it is then our job, to make it inescapably clear that the system was broken to begin with.