Many take quite a different stand on the decade of the 1980s, and whether it was an era of greed or one of sound economic policies when it comes to the persistent of poverty. Conservatives often argue the fault of poverty lies in the behavior of the poor, while liberals often blame wage stagnation and economic policies as the root cause of poverty. This analysis will focus on two economists, one a liberal and one a conservative, who take a very different perspective on poverty during the 1980s. Other perspectives will be related to these core ideological points-of-view from the liberal and conservative camps, but each of these viewpoints shows us the different manner in which poverty during the 1980s is understood.
Liberal Kevin Phillips makes the contention that the switch from Keynesian to supply-side economics, namely Reaganomics, did nothing to help those outside of the top five percent of income earners in the U.S. In fact, he argues that the economic policies enacted by the Reagan administration had two main effects: a polarization of income; an enormous buildup of debt. Phillips, like most liberals on this issue, argues that wage stagnation and economic transformations resulted in the persistence of poverty in the 1980s. Phillips’ argument is often convincing, with data and evidence culled from reliable sources as well as a broad understanding of the economic history of the 20th century via which he frames his 1980s comparisons. Conservative Andrew Reynolds, on the other hand, contends that the economic policies of the 1980s lifted the “boats” of 90 percent of the American public. His main point of evidence to support his contention is his deconstruction of one source by Krugman and Nasar favoring a liberal view. Reynolds takes the conservative approach that poverty results from individual behavior. For example, his argument for why the poorest percentage of Americans is poor, a number he says is much low...