The Invisible People of the 1950s:Explaining the Cause of Poverty During Prosperity

Jean Cabral

HI 460 Senior Research Seminar in HistoryDr. Tona HangenNovember 6, 2013

At the end of the 1950s, as the Cold War was beginning to truly escalate, the United

States was met with another growing problem- poverty. After an era of economic success and

technological advancements, it came as a shock to many that the country had a poverty rate

between 16 and 36% (depending on the threshold determinant). Not only were Americans

looking for ways to solve the issue of poverty, they were also looking for ways to explain the

problem. Who exactly is poor? Where do the poor live? Why are they poor? What keeps them

poor? Why can’t they raise themselves out of poverty? What can be done to eradicate this

problem?

The 1950s is commonly referred to as a decade of prosperity, and often follows nostalgic

sentiments. Many believe the 1950s were a time of stability, morality, and amicable social

environments. Because of the popularity of consumerism and a steady rise in wages and

employment rates over the course of the decade, poverty seemed to be nonexistent. However,

when further examining the socioeconomic structures of the 1950s, it is easy to gain different

insight. By the end of the decade, nearly a third of the nation’s children were poor, as were

nearly half of all married African American couples.1 The poor in the 1950s were invisible, kept

that way by society, which had inadvertently created a social culture that both ignored and

perpetuated poverty. Technological advances and the rebirth of the middle class had somehow

distracted the country with most people believing poverty had been alleviated.

It came as a shock to many in the early 1960s that the country’s poor had grown

astronomically over the prior decade. However, the development of the middle class over the

decade was so impressive that, for many, poverty simply didn’t seem to exist. The sad truth of

the matter is that the reemergence of the middle class in the 1950s actually caused poverty

1 D. Bradford Hunt, “How Did Public Housing Survive the 1950s?,” Journal of Policy History 17, no. 2 (2005): 193–216.

2

issues. The old working poor had joined unions, and moved into the middle class. The new

working poor, however, were now extremely unskilled. Most did not graduate high school and

were forced into low wage jobs. If these workers had unions, they were likely taken advantage of

with dues and ineffective representation. The rising middle class had left massive groups of

people in poorly paying careers, with little hope of moving to the next income tax bracket.

In 1958, J.K. Galbraith published The Affluent Society, in it arguing that the ‘new’ poor

of the 1950s were unlike any other. Since the “working poor” of previous decades had largely

moved comfortably into territory of middle class, these poor were a minority. Unable to mobilize

any political movement, the poor were easily ignored. Galbraith believed there were two main

components to poverty: case poverty and insular poverty. Case poverty was derived from mental

or physical disability, making economic advancement impossible. Insular poverty refers to areas

such as Appalachians, where a vast area of the country becomes obsolete.2 Galbraith essentially

attributed poverty to depressed economic regions, addiction to alcohol, and mental illness. There

was no counting the Americans who did not belong to those groups, such as the poor in isolated

urban areas, public housing and ghettos, or the uneducated poor, among others.

Michael Harrington set out to define poverty and make America aware of the grave

problem in his book The Other America: Poverty in the United States (1962). The 1950 census

gives a population total of 151,000,000 total Americans, and the 1960 census gives a population

total of 179,000,000.3 Harrington illustrates the hard truth that 50,000,000 Americans were living

at or below the poverty level, a much larger percentage than they were previously led to believe.

Because of this, he heavily disagrees with Galbraith’s argument of insular poverty, as insular

poverty could not explain such a high number for poverty. Harrington argues that there are

2 J.K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society (Houghton Mifflin, 1969), 17.3 U.S. Census Bureau, “History Fast Facts,” U.S. Department of Commerce, n.d., http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_facts/1950_fast_facts.html.

3

indeed enough poor people in the country to be their own “subculture of misery,” and that is

what the country had indeed created for them.4

While Galbraith’s book was one of the first to call poverty to the attention of the rest of

the country, his analysis has come under scrutiny. The idea that poverty became a culture in the

1950s is more than accurate, other historians and researchers in poverty, including Michael

Corcoran and Carole Marks have followed that train of thinking, delving into the idea that the

problem is explained by the culture of poverty5 and study of the models that create and

perpetuate poverty.6 However, these authors differ from Galbraith in that they believe poverty to

be a major problem. While admitting many Americans were still impoverished, Galbraith tended

to glaze over the subject, stating that the poor were in a “comparative minority,” and that largely

poverty had been successfully battled.7 Since then, those who study poverty have agreed that it is

an ever-present problem in society, and needs constant attention. Poverty is now believed to exist

in cycles and can even have caste systems.

In the late 1940s, congressional committees had set the poverty line at $2,000 for an

urban family of four. Because of the disagreements over the figure of the poverty line, the $2,000

level was never adjusted for inflation over the course of the decade, and was not revisited until

1961.8 Many believed the basic needs of the nation were sufficiently met, and human needs were

now more commercial. In 1958, the lowest fifth of Americans shared just 4.7% of total income,

with an average family income of $1,460. The second lowest fifth of Americans, however, was

increasingly better off, holding 11.1% of total income, with average family income at $3,480.9

4 Michael Harrington, The Other America: Poverty in the United States (Macmillon, 1962), 9.5 Michael Corcoran, “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States,” Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1995): 237–239.6 Carole Marks, “The Urban Underclass,” Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 463.7 Galbraith, The Affluent Society, 261.8 Harrington, The Other America: Poverty in the United States, 181.9 Ibid., 183.

4

This measurement shows that even though they were considered the second lowest fifth, the

middle class was still prospering at a level much higher than the lowest fifth of Americans.

America’s poor came from many minority groups that were routinely ignored. They were the

uneducated, the mentally ill, the disabled, the young (under 18) and the elderly (over 65), and

racial minorities. These were the majority of the poor. These groups held little political power or

lobbying power, leading them to be ignored, much as in the same way as racial discrimination

during the era.

Harrington argues that there were even more cultures of poverty in the country, defined

as subcultures. While significantly smaller than the classically poor groups, understanding and

calling attention to poverty involved shining light on all of the country’s poor. The first, and

smallest, culture being the rural poor. Due to agricultural and technological advances, rural areas

had become unsustainable, and were largely abandoned. Those who decided to stay were poor

and alone. More often than not, these families were found in the Southern belt of the United

States. Many, like the family pictured below, were resigned to houses without electricity and

running water, and made severely less in income than their white urbanite counterparts.

5

A rural poor family from Montgomery, AL. Their home has no heat or running water. Because they are lacking in basic human needs, they are considered to be in "extreme poverty." This is a common condition of the poor in more rural areas during the decade.10

Harrington then described a small subculture of poverty that could be spirited and

enthusiastic, uncharacteristic of the other cultures. These were the intellectuals, beats, and

bohemians. While they lived in poor neighborhoods, they did so willingly and were likely to

achieve mobility into the middle class. The final, and most debilitating and destructive, culture of

poverty are the group of alcoholic and otherwise addicted poor. Ascribed to the nature of their

poverty, the alcoholic poor have the smallest chance of mobilizing out of poverty.11

As the poor adapted to their culture, their offspring became immune to the idea of life

without poverty, and a cycle of intergenerational poverty emerged within them. To attempt to

understand poverty and how it becomes such a debilitation for millions of Americans, studies

including models and theories on poverty began to emerge after the decade ended. Generally,

there were three theoretical perspectives, or ‘models,’ to explain poverty and its subsequent

culture: the resources model, the correlated disadvantages model, and the welfare culture

model.12

The resources model states that parental resources are a major factor of intergenerational

poverty. This model is rather lacking in depth or detail, and instead is quite blunt. The higher the

parental income, the higher chance their children had for achievements. Parents with incomes

below the poverty line cannot provide for their children to achieve accurately, leaving the

10 "Extreme poverty has existed throughout the United States for many years. Some families, like this..." American Social Reform Movements Reference Library. Ed. Carol Brennan, et al. Vol. 4: Primary Sources. Detroit: UXL, 2007. U.S. History In Context. Web. 9 Oct. 2013.

11 Harrington, The Other America: Poverty in the United States, 81–82.12 Corcoran, “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States.”

6

children in poverty. The believed solution in this explanation of poverty was an increase in

welfare benefits for those living below the poverty level.13

The correlated disadvantages model argued that it was not parental poverty, but parental

disadvantages that kept children in poverty. As a result, it was not classified as intergenerational.

Because socioeconomic disadvantages were vast, this perspective of explaining poverty touched

much more thoroughly on the personal facets of poverty. Common disadvantages to escaping

poverty included single-parent households (typically headed by a female), low intelligence, and

lack of education. Children in these households are more likely to have higher rates of high

school drop out, teen pregnancy, and joblessness. Actions to improve education and schooling

practices are proposed as the solution to this type of poverty.14

The final model is the welfare culture. This theory of explaining poverty underscores

deviant values, attitudes, and behaviors. However, this theory also contends that these are fueled

by the government welfare system. Arguably, Galbraith believed in a welfare culture of poverty,

and was not wrong in this interpretation.15 In this model, family members and neighbors rely

heavily on welfare, causing the social stigma associated with collecting welfare to disappear.

Eventually, these people develop self-defeating attitudes and lack work ethic. Parents and

children become trapped in poverty because of their dysfunctional behaviors.16 The solution of

eliminating welfare or setting time limits is proposed, as welfare is the reason for this poverty.

These models try to accurately explain the causes of poverty, and even attempt solutions.

To truly explain poverty in the 1950s, it is impossible to avoid the idea of isolationism as a major

cause of poverty. During this era, it was common for the impoverished to be in public housing

13 Marks, “The Urban Underclass.”14 Ibid.15 Galbraith, The Affluent Society.16 Corcoran, “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States. ”

7

settlements and other slums and ghettos, away from the rest of the population. The rise of

suburban life in the 1950s not only separated the poor from the middle and upper classes, but it

also cemented them in being ignored by others. Yes, all of the conditions of the models above

cause poverty and discourage movement away from poverty. However, these models cannot

fully explain the 1950s. Unfortunately, besides Galbraith’s, no other model was theorized during

the decade, and the previous models did not cover the unique condition of the 1950s.

Fortunately, the emergence of a fourth model in 1987 by William J. Wilson spoke of an

“underclass model,” which states that the ‘urban underclass’ (the poor in ghettos and public

housing) adapt and grow in their culture due to their logistical drawbacks.17

The underclass model attributed poverty to the structure of society at the time.

Neighborhood isolation caused segregation and poor social status of the poor. The loss of well

paying jobs that employed the less educated left small chances of residents of urban or rural poor

areas ever being able to escape poverty. In this model, it is likely that there are high rates of male

unemployment locally, along with highly concentrated poverty in certain neighborhoods.18 The

model implies that class is more important than race in terms of poverty and mobility. To reverse

these effects, a change in social behavior of the middle class is necessary. Reintegrating

neighborhoods to combat social isolation and macroeconomic policy to provide jobs is thought

to lead to a reduction in negative attitude and behavior.19

The 1950s, a time of such progress for so many Americans, is also remembered as a time

that was centered on family and values. There was a consumer culture that had never existed

before, modern luxuries were becoming readily availably to larger groups of people, and higher

education boomed for men who would later receive well paying jobs to support their families.

17 David Whitman, “Unemployed Underclass,” The Washington Monthly, November 1996.18 Marks, “The Urban Underclass.”19 Whitman, “Unemployed Underclass.”

8

With the most visible parts of the country advancing so steadily, it is easier to understand how

poverty during this time was overlooked. The problem of the 1950s is unique to the following

decades, since it was the first decade of overwhelming prosperity and the beginning of a new

consumer culture. Because of the era’s following of the most serious economic depression and

war the country had ever faced, the intricate anomalies of the time caused it to be difficult to

understand using the first three models. Using the underclass model of poverty as a guide, the

cause of poverty in the 1950s can be explained since the idea of isolationism, as a perpetuator of

poverty, is key to this model.

While trying to properly affix the poverty issues of the 1950s to the underclass model, it

is important to explain the conditions of the decade. Due to simultaneous changes in society,

such as the rise of higher education, the popularity and new affordability of single-family homes

in suburbs, and opposition to social welfare projects, the poor slipped through the cracks while

the new middle class rose steadily. Social blindness regarding poverty in the decade is also a

cause, as were the technological advances that secured jobs for those who received post

secondary education. Just as middle class culture rose, so did poverty as a culture.

The socially blind of the time believed that the poor chose not to work and live off of

taxpayers instead. Even if not overt in statement, the lack of attention to poverty in the 1950s

illustrates the feeling of the wealthier ‘classes’ during this time. This blindness caused much

public opposition to social welfare attempts to integrate public housing, which created slums and

ghettos.20 Many urban areas during this decade had opposed the efforts of the local Housing

Authority to try to integrate public housing. Somewhat ironically, in the late 1940s, public

housing had stringent qualifications attached to entry, which led to a predominantly white

20 Richard Rothstein, Race and Public Housing: Revisiting the Federal Role (Washington, United States: Poverty & Race Research Action Council, December 2012), ]

9

settlement in public housing. In 1949, President Harry Truman unveiled his new domestic policy,

called the Fair Deal. In this deal was the 1949 Housing Act. This act thoroughly expanded the

federal role in mortgage insurances and issuances, as well as development of public housing.

Under this act the federal government would provide for: (1) slum clearance programs tied to

urban renewal, (2) authorization of Federal Housing Administration for providing mortgage

insurance, (3) funding for more than 800,000 public housing units, (4) greater research into

housing and housing techniques, and (5) FHA financing of rural homeowners.21

From the Great Depression to the early 1950s, cities were faced with housing shortages

and an influx of returning war veterans. To meet the new population demands, cities began to

construct public housing, or ‘projects,’ for working and middle class families. These projects

were highly desirable, as this affordable housing was difficult to attain. Only two parent families

were allowed to apply, and some states required proof of marriage licenses. With preference

given to war veterans, the white middle class quickly occupied these units while the men utilized

government subsidized college education.22 As the decade advanced, those who enjoyed free

college education and higher paying jobs were afforded the opportunity to move into a single-

family home. Because of the rising economic conditions for middle class families, single-family

home settlements called suburbs emerged and became wildly popular. The creation of those

suburbs left many vacancies in the public housing market, and left cities less inhabited.23 In

Detroit, for example, there were 3,000 vacant public housing units by 1950 as suburbs

expanded.24

21 Anonymous, “Provisions of the Housing Act of 1949,” Monthly Labor Review (pre-1986) 69, no. 000002 (August 1949): 155.22 Alma Taeuber, “Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940-1960. by Arnold R. Hirsch (A Review),” American Journal of Sociology 91, no. 1 (July 1985): 194–197.23 Nicholas Dagen Bloom, “Manhattan Projects: The Rise and Fall of Urban Renewal in Cold War New York: [1],” Contemporary Sociology 41, no. 1 (January 2012): 115–116.24 Rothstein, Race and Public Housing.

10

Even though the middle class had once both treasured and relied on housing provided by

the government, the opposition to such projects rose greatly after the rise of suburbs and single-

family homes. In New York City, public housing units were built privately and paid for with

levied taxes, and run by the New York City Housing Authority. Most public housing was

developed in white neighborhoods, with at most only a few black residents. Low-income projects

also existed, but were mostly in black neighborhoods, with 12% white residents by the 1950s. In

Los Angeles, where in 1947 public housing had been 55% white and 30% black, by 1959 had

completely changed to a demographic of 14% white, 65% black, and 19% Hispanic.25

Shortly into the start of the decade, the Housing Act came up against significant

opposition. Afraid of government competition, the U.S. Savings and Loan League and National

Association of Home Builders began to mobilize members to speak out against public housing.

Suddenly, the backlash was in the voters’ hands with a slew of ballot referenda. California was

even so outraged by the Housing Act that Los Angeles removed a mayor over the issue, and

voted that any new housing project had to be approved through local referenda.26 Of course,

since the decade precedes the Civil Rights Act, racial discrimination is also an abundant issue in

public housing:

Racially discriminatory siting and leasing policies have also helped concentrate the

poorest people in certain developments. In most large cities, the poor are

disproportionately composed of racial minorities. …discrimination in assigning tenants to

public housing was official government policy in many cities.27

25 Don Parson, “The Decline of Public Housing and the Politics of the Red Scare: The Significance of the Los Angeles Public Housing War,” Journal of Urban History 33, no. 3 (2007): 400–417, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0096144206297135.26 Hunt, “How Did Public Housing Survive the 1950s?”.27 Michael H. Schill, “Distressed Public Housing: Where Do We Go from Here?,” The University of Chicago Law Review 60, no. 2 (Spring 1993): 497.

11

In California, public housing had come to be known as “negro housing,” and whites

protested locations for projects in their neighborhoods. Public officials were forced to concede

and relocated projects designated for white neighborhoods to the predominantly black area of

Watts in southern Los Angeles. Projects designated for Santa Monica (on the attempt of racial

integration) were also relocated to Watts. In 1952, the Los Angeles Public Housing Authority

attempted to build an integrated project northwest of downtown, away from Watts. City Council

called a meeting and cancelled the project, sponsoring a referendum. Voters overwhelmingly

rejected the projects. Between 1953 and 1955, three neighborhood projects were built in Watts,

transforming the area from a predominantly black area to an isolated ghetto struck with

poverty.28 Other cities experienced their own struggles with this idea of urban renewal. John

Bauman, author of Public Housing, Race, and Renewal: Urban Planning in Philadelphia, states

that in Philadelphia, “all of the projects planned and built from 1956 to 1967 were sited in ghetto

or 'transitional' neighborhoods."29

The opposition to integration of public housing is the first decision made by most of the

country to ignore poverty throughout the decade. The middle class was able to take advantage of

their newfound vocal power, in the process creating ghettos and isolating the poor. These

conditions made economic mobility for the poor extremely unlikely. Cold War fear had not

helped the poor in their endeavors either, as public housing was rebranded as ‘socialist,’ an Anti-

American value. Even though these same families likely lived in the very same housing projects

a decade earlier, public housing was now a government program that came with a heavy social

stigma. While better off families were caught up in a culture of consuming, buying television

sets, cars, going on vacation, etc., the poor were trying to survive in quickly deteriorating

28 Rothstein, Race and Public Housing.29 John F. Bauman, Public Housing, Race, and Renewal: Urban Planning in Philadelphia, 1920-1974 (Temple University Press, 1987).

12

housing projects.30 In 1956, the introduction of Eisenhower’s federal highway system would be

another failure for the poor, as this made their urban neighborhoods (likely close to highways)

even more undesirable. Cast away from the rest of society, the poor begin to adjust to their

isolation and adapt lifestyles.

Once living in isolated ghettos, or isolated and economically depressed rural areas,

residents began to adapt to their lifestyles and become complacent. Without pushes either from

within or from society, they were likely to remain poor. Disadvantages had sent them to join the

other ranks of impoverished, and the failure of society to recognize and address their problems

had left much of the poor without any realistic hope of leaving their ghettos. Certain behaviors

and lifestyles influenced by living in an isolated ghetto emerge. For the sake of staying on topic,

crime and gang violence are going to be ignored as lifestyles and instead classified as social

deviances. The appearance of an environment that fosters crime and violence is considered the

biggest failure of public housing.31

According to the underclass model, it is difficult to gain a sense of community in ghettos.

It is theorized that communal groups and activities can lead to greater overall wellbeing and

lower crime in the community. Why were communities unattainable in ghettos and housing

units? Harrington explains this with a rundown of the groups of people commonly found in such

projects. 32A small group of people in the ghetto would typically work to advocate with the

Tenant’s Association. These were the most adjusted to the world outside the ghetto. Because of

this, their incomes rose faster than the rest of the project, causing them to be candidates for

30 Rothstein, Race and Public Housing.31 Even though it is hard to separate crime and gang activity from ghettos and projects, the emergence of inner-city crime is much too involved to explain or categorize without focusing on gang violence and crime exclusively during this time. I personally argue the isolation of ghettos (away from whites and other civilization) creates an opportunity for gang formation. Since the impoverished of the ghetto see no chance of leaving, gang activity emerges as a way to create solidarity and protect the ghetto. 32 Harrington, The Other America: Poverty in the United States.

13

eviction from the very neighborhood that they once worked so hard to improve. These people

have a tendency to believe themselves elite, causing little interaction with the rest of the

neighborhood. Another group of people has lived in the ghetto for a long period of time, likely

before it was a project. These people find religious or ethnic reasons to stay, such as a church

than can only be found in their neighborhood, or an ethnic group that only resides in that

neighborhood. These people stick to themselves and are unlikely to have any social interaction

outside the group they have chosen to identify with. Finally, the third group withdraws. These

people purposely isolate and alienate themselves in their own apartments. Typically, these people

become faceless to the other members of the ghetto.33

Projects are typically large and impersonal, with frequent supervision and checking for

possible violations. Combining the impersonal atmosphere with the lifestyles of the people that

live inside the project creates a drab experience. The characteristics of living in ghettos make the

possibility of any type of “community” feeling extremely doubtful. Those who come from

environments with a communal connection (slums, perhaps) will get no satisfaction from the

projects and seek community in other ways, such as joining a gang. Denied of any sense of

community from both their projects and the segregation from better off areas, the poor are aloof

from the rest of society. The poor have been forgotten about, and truly isolated.34

Another factor leading to the isolationism in projects is the lack of well paying jobs.

Many members of projects suffer from poor education or low intelligence, or both. After the

return of veterans from World War II and went to a college paid for by the G.I. Bill, the supply

of higher educated workers in the labor market increased. Because of the increases in technology

and consumerism, the better paying jobs of the 1950s were fast paced and required either

33 Ibid., 150–151.34 Taeuber, “Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940-1960. by Arnold R. Hirsch (A Review).”

14

educational or technological knowledge. Living in poverty in a project is not typically conducive

to either of those skills. For millions of Americans who couldn’t afford education and whose

skills either went extinct with technological advances or never existed to begin with, better

paying jobs are unattainable unless there is some change in their situation.

Now that the aspects of the 1950s that parallel the underclass model have been specified,

the correlation between the model and poverty in the 1950s can be deduced. The underclass

model argues, above all, that social isolation of the poor and the lack of well paying jobs are the

root causes of poverty. The 1950s exhibited both of these situations to an extreme degree. Higher

wage and good union jobs went to men with education levels of high school and beyond. Public

housing projects that used to house the middle class now housed the poor, and those

neighborhoods became isolated ghettos. At a time when the country was going through a

complete upheaval of old cultural and economic constants, the underclass model developed in

America and progressed significantly until finally called to attention towards the end of the

decade. From comparing the conditions of the 1950s to the conditions to the underclass model,

an explanation can be found. Poverty in the 1950s became an alarming problem because of the

development of the underclass model, which really classifies as an epidemic model.35 Residents

become socially isolated from the mainstream society and trapped in a cycle of poverty and

dependency, and the problem only escalates the longer it exists. However, there is a more precise

explanation for why poverty existed in the 1950s.

While the underclass model of poverty does fit to explain the poverty of the 1950s, it is

still not satisfactory. Instead, admitting what caused the underclass model to exist in the 1950s

accurately explains poverty. The rise of the middle class as a self-sufficient group without need

for much government assistance had “left behind” the poor who did not have the same

35 Corcoran, “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States.”

15

advantages, especially minorities. As the economic situation of the rest of the country improved

steadily over the decade, the poor shared little of the rest of America’s optimism. Physically

separating the poor from the rest of the classes simply caused the country to forget poverty

existed. And if poverty existed, the new middle class believed it to be a personal choice. Since

the middle class found themselves with so many advantages, why didn’t the poor bother to work

harder for those same advantages? Though the involvement of the middle class was largely

unintentional and ignorant, it is impossible to explain the condition of poverty in the 1950s

without attributing it to the middle class. In economic standards, it is often improbably to be able

to make groups of people better off without making other groups of people worse off.

Unfortunately, the strides of the regenerated middle class during this decade were at the expense

of the debilitated poor.

16

Word Count: 4612

Bibliography

Anonymous. “Provisions of the Housing Act of 1949.” Monthly Labor Review (pre-1986) 69, no. 000002 (August 1949): 155.

Bauman, John F. Public Housing, Race, and Renewal: Urban Planning in Philadelphia, 1920-1974. Temple University Press, 1987.

Bloom, Nicholas Dagen. “Manhattan Projects: The Rise and Fall of Urban Renewal in Cold War New York: [1].” Contemporary Sociology 41, no. 1 (January 2012): 115–116.

Corcoran, Michael. “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States.” Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1995): 237–239.

Galbraith, J.K. The Affluent Society. Houghton Mifflin, 1969.Harrington, Michael. The Other America: Poverty in the United States. Macmillon, 1962.Hunt, D. Bradford. “How Did Public Housing Survive the 1950s?” Journal of Policy History 17,

no. 2 (2005): 193–216.Marks, Carole. “The Urban Underclass.” Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 460–465.Parson, Don. “The Decline of Public Housing and the Politics of the Red Scare: The Significance

of the Los Angeles Public Housing War.” Journal of Urban History 33, no. 3 (2007): 400–417. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0096144206297135.

Rothstein, Richard. Race and Public Housing: Revisiting the Federal Role. Washington, United States: Poverty & Race Research Action Council, December 2012. http://search.proquest.com.gold.worcester.edu/socscicoll/docview/1223387273/abstract/1418B155AF8397FFFD5/5?accountid=29121.

Schill, Michael H. “Distressed Public Housing: Where Do We Go from Here?” The University of Chicago Law Review 60, no. 2 (Spring 1993): 497.

Taeuber, Alma. “Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940-1960. by Arnold R. Hirsch (A Review).” American Journal of Sociology 91, no. 1 (July 1985): 194–197.

U.S. Census Bureau. “History Fast Facts.” U.S. Department of Commerce, n.d. http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_facts/1950_fast_facts.html.

Whitman, David. “Unemployed Underclass.” The Washington Monthly, November 1996.

17