Opinion: Victim shaming won’t help solve poverty in U.S.

I am both tired and ashamed that this even needs to be written, said, or posted.  It is worse that some believe the old lies of meritocracy when it is so clear that most wealth in this country is inherited wealth, money passed down from older people to younger always increasing each time because the wealthy call estate tax a death tax and claim it hurts poor people.   Poor people do not have such a problem as the inheritance tax is only activated when the inheritance is in the upper millions.  Hugs.

Starbucks Workers United baristas and supporters rally for a fair union contract outside Starbucks East Coast distribution center on Nov. 19, 2025, in York, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Lisa Lake/Getty Images for Starbucks Workers United)

By John Sise | Guest columnist

PUBLISHED: November 26, 2025 at 7:30 AM EST

An editorial titled “Billionaires are not to blame for poverty” that appeared recently in The Morning Call is another example of victim shaming and proof that some academics do live in ivory towers with no knowledge of how the real world works or perhaps refuse to acknowledge the realities of the world.

The author’s premise is that people are poor because of poor individual choices. He cites the “success sequence” as a guideline to follow. For those who don’t know the success sequence, it has three basic steps. 1) Graduate from High School. 2) Get a steady job. 3) Do not have kids until you are married. He also provides two examples from his childhood of people he knew who made poor choices by not following the success sequence with one resulting in his early demise. He then uses himself as an example of what happens when you do make good choices and then succeed in life. Good for him!

However, he did not have the cultural and political systems working against him. And that, by his own admission, in his opinion piece, is the major weakness of the “success sequence.” Additionally, the analysis he mentioned done by Wang and Wilcox did not take into consideration families with disabled members, families with an elderly member, or families where all members are under the age of 25, thus biasing the sample to begin with.

Plus, the original work did not look at the success rate over time. According to Matt Bruenig of the Jacobin Magazine, the success rate dropped 17% after just 1 year. Matt Bruenig goes on to say that the “success sequence” is just being used to push the blame on individuals without acknowledging the impact of social and cultural structures and the vagaries of life such as job loss, family emergencies, divorce, etc.

But to then say billionaires like Jeff Bezos are not responsible for poverty?

It is no secret that some companies that earn billions of dollars a year in profits, benefit greatly from not having to pay many of their employees a living wage, a wage that allows them to live without relying on government subsidies for food or health care. This is not because of some poor choice on the part of the employee; our economic system is set up to maximize earnings, not to provide a living wage for every working person. Additionally, corporations, aided by willing politicians, strive to depress wages through anti-union efforts and favorable tax policies for wealthy individuals and corporations. Keep in mind that between 50% to 70% of people on these government programs have full and/or part time jobs.

The 2025 poverty levels set by the U.S. government are, for an individual, $15,650 a year: for a family of four, $32,150. Should we adopt across the country a minimum wage of $15 per hour, it would result in gross earnings of $31,200 for one individual working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, not enough for a family of four to meet the federal poverty level.

A July 2024 analysis by Forbes Advisor listed the cost of essential expenditures, including housing costs, transportation, health care, food, and income taxes in all 50 states. The cheapest state to live in was Mississippi with a cost of living of $32,336 per year. The most expensive was Hawaii at over $55,000 a year.

The overall question one must ask oneself then is, “What is the purpose of society?”

Is society’s purpose to generate wealth so that a very few can live extravagantly and wield incredible power over those less wealthy or fortunate?

Or is the purpose of society to create and foster an environment where people can live, work and play without the fear of living off the crumbs discarded by the well-to-do?

Is the purpose of society to define winners and losers and to then treat them politically and culturally according to their perceived “status?” Or is the purpose of society to aid and assist everyone in their fulfillment as an individual and as communities living in relative peace and harmony with their neighbors?

One of the most basic and effective ways to reduce crime and poverty is to give people the means to live their lives without fear of continual economic crises. Yet, our current system is set up to do the opposite.

Jeff Bezos and most other billionaires are not singularly responsible for poverty, but they sure are not doing much to help alleviate it.

This is a contributed opinion column. John Sise is a resident of Hanover Township, Northampton County. The views expressed in this piece are those of its individual author, and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of this publication. Do you have a perspective to share? Learn more about how we handle guest opinion submissions at themorningcall.com/opinions.