Unionization And Poverty Sociology

Through the interviews I conducted and the data I found, I understood a little more about the impact economic conditions have families in poverty. Currently, there isn’t many jobs available, and the jobs that are available are low-quality jobs that which aren’t able to uplift families from poverty. I read two sociological articles that related to economic influences and poverty.
The first sociological article was “When Unionization Disappears: State-Level Unionization and Working Poverty in the United States”. This article focused of the influence of unionization of American poverty is greater than the influence of economic performance and social policies, but it was also found that laws and institutions that results negatively on unionization
Which relates back how currently there isn’t many jobs available and the ones available are low-quality. The research question was “How will an increased understanding of comparative institutions, unionization, and state politics affect our understanding of poverty?” Traditionally, when studying American poverty the focus of the research would be jobs and economic performance. As a result, a large sum of the studies is based on American poverty focuses on the unemployed poor instead of the working poor. The problem is that the working poor is a greater representation of American poverty than the unemployed poor. The sociological method used to explain these findings was Quantitative Secondary Data because most of the data were second hand data like the Luxembourg Income Study for information about the working poor, and Gross Domestic Product Per Capita and other sources like it are used for comprehensive understanding between the data and dependent factors. These sources show the apparent importance of unionization because states
There was information based on the current predominant welfare system, the poverty rate, the economic structure and other factors to properly be projecting the impacts of the Promise of a Job, the proposal of the researchers, on poverty. Their proposal builds on the concept of a transitional job program and incorporates the work-first ideal of TANF, but how it differs from TANF is that POJ is designed to be an antipoverty program. The study argued that TANF failed as an antipoverty program because many of the welfare recipients couldn’t work enough to lift their families out of poverty. “POJ being an antipoverty program means that the wages of the jobs developed by the program will be sufficient, when associated with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Food Stamps, to help the vast majority of recipient families out of poverty.” POJ also address the personal and structural “barriers to work” experienced by many of the families. The jobs created by the program will be provided for as long as needed. Until the POJ participants are able to progress into better jobs in the private sector. Both scenarios assumed that all eligible adults work full-time for the period. Simply the scenarios were based on the idea “What would have happened if there were jobs available and applicants were allowed free access to welfare